Senator FERRIS (2:02 PM) —My question is to Senator Minchin. Will he please indicate how the mining industry has benefited from the government's amendments to the Native Title Act? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches?

Senator MINCHIN (Minister for Industry, Science and Resources) —I appreciate that question from Senator Ferris, who I must say is doing a great job as the chairman of the parliament's joint standing committee on native title. As we know but the opposition does not, mining is very important to Australia, and particularly to the state of the Leader of the Opposition, Western Australia. It provides us with 45 per cent of our merchandise exports and employs about 80,000 people, many of them in trade unions. It is one industry where I think we can actually claim to be world leaders. It is an industry that must have policy and legal certainty to support long-term decisions on exploration and investment.

The original 1993 Keating Native Title Act was a complete disaster for the minerals industry. It compounded the great uncertainty that followed from the Mabo decision. There was no proper registration test whatsoever. There was no capacity to make legally binding agreements. It was an unworkable piece of legislation. Our amendments, passed in 1998, did deal with those problems. We did set out those land tenures where native title had been extinguished by the operation of the common law. We toughened the registration test. We set up a decent land use agreement system. We protected the right of genuine native title claimants. We did not extinguish any common law native title rights. The amendments were a compromise. They took two years to negotiate. They did provide a fair balance between Aborigines and other parties. They did restore some certainty to the system.

But, of course, now we have this inept opposition stumbling into this area and creating, frankly, havoc for the mining industry in Australia. You would think that, after Mr Beazley's incredible stuff-up over the GST during an interview with Laurie Oakes, the ALP would have issued a ban on appearing on Laurie Oakes's program. But, of course, no. We had Daryl Melham brave enough and stupid enough to appear on Laurie Oakes's program on Sunday, in one of the most inept performances I think we have ever seen from an opposition frontbencher. It is as though the Bobbsey twins said to Daryl, `If you get into trouble, just close your eyes and say, “But Laurie; but Laurie”.' Of course, that was a complete stuff-up. So then we had Kim Beazley enter into the fray in an attempt to clean up the mess created by his colleague Daryl Melham. We had a doorstop interview from Mr Beazley. He said that the policy under Labor was to change the Native Title Act `to make sure it remains within the framework of the original Racial Discrimination Act's special measures that the 1993 act entailed'.

I would love to see Mr Beazley get up in Kalgoorlie and explain that to a meeting of mining workers, and explain exactly what on earth that means. How on earth can anyone in the mining industry, contemplate billion dollar investments in this leading, world-class industry when they are faced with this sort of inept and crazy confusion from those opposite. The industry is already suffering significantly from low commodity prices and uncertainty over land access. The industry has no hope of planning with confidence when the alternative government says that it is going to completely reopen the whole native title debate when it has absolutely no idea what its policy is in this area. You have had two years since these amendments were passed to work out what your policy is on what is the new Native Title Act. Now we have this Beazley-Melham complete mess on native title. It will be overwhelmingly rejected by rural and regional Australians, who have a right to expect a decent policy from this inept opposition.