Senator LUNDY (6:31 PM) —The first time the Native Title Amendment Bill 1996 was before this chamber I spoke about how this legislation, more than any other, will be seen as defining the Howard government. In the same way that the Australian community sees this issue as a defining moment in our history, so too does the international community. Australia is under the international spotlight and the focus of international attention is directed towards us, particularly on this issue. For the past two years this government has turned back the clock with respect to Australia's international and national obligations, first in Kyoto with greenhouse emissions and now with respect to the Native Title Amendment Bill . Australia is slowly returning to a 1950s mentality; consequently, a 1950s style role in world affairs. This is the legacy of the Prime Minister, John Howard.

If the volume of correspondence I have received about native title is any measure of public opinion, then it is obvious that the majority of Australians are demanding fair and just legislation for indigenous Australians. This bill is of momentous importance because we have so few opportunities to reconcile the needs of indigenous people with the needs of the wider Australian community. Labor recognises that the Native Title Amendment Bill [No. 2] is a unique opportunity for the parliament to make a decision of profound historical significance. It is deeply regrettable that the Liberal and National parties are more concerned with short-term political point scoring than with the future of race relations in this country.

If the government is interested in Australia's long-term future, then they should make reconciliation a priority. It is not surprising that some people get the impression the Prime Minister keeps wishing that Wik would go away—but it will not. It will not disappear because people want this issue resolved. For two years the voting public have waited for a vision from the Prime Minister, a vision for this generation and for future generations. It has not been forthcoming. Younger Australians in particular are hoping that the parliament will grasp the native title bill as the unique opportunity it represents to pursue genuine reconciliation. They are hoping the parliament will do that because they know the government does not have the will or the political intent to do that.

It must be heartbreaking for many young Australians to discover that the only vision of the Howard government is to recycle a 1950s style Liberal Party and a 1950s image of Australian society. I find it deeply regrettable that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs chooses to completely ignore the damage being done to the reconciliation process. I believe the minister has a duty to represent the interests of the people who come under his portfolio. This has not occurred. These people, indigenous Australians, have no voice in cabinet because the minister has chosen to completely abrogate that responsibility. It must indeed be marked down as the low point in race relations when the minister for Aboriginal affairs proclaims it as a badge of honour to be censured by ATSIC.

Rather than producing real policies that will propel Australia into the next century, the Prime Minister and his band of short-sighted bandaid waving ministers are prepared to sacrifice Australia's future in terms of racial harmony and reconciliation in the interests of a few offshore pastoralists and overseas mining companies. Their interests are being placed before the interests of Australian people. Talk about a conflict of interest.

In relation to the provisions contained in this bill, the right to negotiate is seen by the government as some kind of obstacle to development. I have heard Senator Minchin rant on about how mining operations are being jeopardised by native title claims. However, the same mining countries alleging that the right to negotiate is a burden on their Australian operations have a history of suc cessful negotiations with indigenous peoples, both here and overseas. There have been a number of highly successful agreements made under the Northern Territory land rights act between mining companies and tribal communities. What is more, some of the multinational countries currently operating here in Australia have negotiated far better royalty rates with overseas indigenous groups. The Ranger uranium operation, for example, pays approximately five per cent in royalties to Aboriginal people. Yet the same companies that are involved in that operation pay Canadian aboriginal people between 15 and 50 per cent for similar activities.

The right to negotiate will not hinder mining activities, because almost every multinational mining organisation is well versed in negotiating fair and just agreements with Aboriginal groups. The only obstacle in this process, as we have seen in Queensland and the Northern Territory, is conservative politicians, who would like to legislate away the rights of the indigenous population in Australia.

Speaking of rights, the amendments to the registration test and sunset clause are plainly a case of discrimination towards indigenous people. Two hundred and ten years of dispossession, stolen children, land grabs, racially discriminatory laws, disenfranchisement and genocide has destroyed a great deal of Aboriginal culture. To then turn around and severely restrict which claimants have a right to negotiate clearly demonstrates a rejection by this government of Aboriginal society and history.

The tragedy of forced removals and dispossession means that some Aboriginal groups have not been allowed to enjoy unrestricted access to traditional lands. Along with the sunset clause, this forms part of the amendments that were proposed in the interest of equity and fairness. If this bill is passed without amendment, Australia will no longer be in a position to judge other countries. If we are incapable of providing justice within our own society, how can we possibly question with any credibility at all the actions of other governments? If we cannot extend the same common law rights to all Australians, what right do we have to comment on the human rights practices of other nations? The government's legislation will prevent people who have had continuous occupation of this land for centuries from carrying out their traditional customs and rights.

Native title rights will not stop pastoralists from using the land for pastoral purposes. Native title will not prevent mining nor will it stop a pastoralist constructing gates, fences or dams. Labor's proposals will not prevent a pastoral leaseholder from using the trees or the soil for land improvement. Our amendments seek to do something Mr Howard is incapable of doing; that is, looking after the interests of indigenous Australians.

The Labor Party's approach to native title stands in complete contrast to the racially discriminatory proposals contained in the government's bill. In the future, when our children and grandchildren study Australian history, the actions of this Senate at this point in time will be recorded, and we will stand to be judged by them. I remind those senators opposite that the very people you are refusing to listen to are the same people who will write and tell the history of how the Howard government set Australia back 40 years, particularly with respect to race relations. Church leaders, historians, academics, unionists, actors, lawyers, musicians, artists, teachers and, of course, our indigenous people have written to their members and senators. They will hold this government in complete contempt.

When this bill was first presented, I commented that you do not have to be a redneck to be a racist. Racism is now found in the guise of this Liberal government. This is strong language, but how else can you describe legislation that is about taking away the rights of one group in our society simply because of their Aboriginality?

I mistakenly believed that even Liberal philosophy represented an acceptance of some degree of equality and fairness. I thought that protecting the common law rights of Australia's indigenous people was a fundamental belief. We often hear the Liberal rhetoric about fundamental common law rights and individual rights. In this case, there is clearly a double standard. I was mistaken when I believed that former Liberal ministers like Fred Chaney and Ian Viner were typical of Liberal party politicians. Then again, when you hear a former Liberal minister expressing dismay at the misleading and divisive campaign being waged by the current Liberal and National parties, you know that this government is far from liberal in the true, small `l' sense of the word. It is not liberal, it is discriminatory.

Even the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has sold out his constituency simply for some perceived electoral advantage. Instead of defending a High Court decision that offered some sort of future for indigenous people, Senator Herron is supporting foreign pastoral lease holders and mining interests. As I said before, he is not even taking the fight to cabinet. There is no voice for indigenous Australians in the cabinet room.

As we approach a new millennium, Australia is at the crossroads. Do we go forward and progress and face our future, even if that means acknowledging that the past contains many horrific acts of prejudice, racism and even genocide? Or do we go back in time to the 1950s and continue the myth that Australia was uninhabited before white settlement? We have moved beyond that in this country, and I stand proudly with my Labor colleagues in refuting the proposed changes contained in the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . I will let history judge the actions of my party in regard to native title, because our commitment to providing true equity to indigenous Australians is unquestionable.

Today is one of those occasions where our behaviour will be remembered long after we are gone from this place. How ashamed must the government senators be if they should vote to support this bill unamended. How ashamed must they be if they are to go down in history as being part of the government to wind back the clock, returning to a view of Aboriginal administration and the rights and lives of our indigenous population held in the 19th century.

I, like so many other Australians, want my children and my grandchildren to grow up in a society capable of bestowing justice and recognition towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Accepting our amendments to this bill is the first step in rebuilding Australia's future. It is the first step in rebuilding what has been a declining international reputation. Cutting the heart out of what it is to be a proud Australian is what this bill does. This country is crying out for leadership. It is crying out for someone of some strength and compassion to take hold of this issue and to move forward. The Prime Minister is not providing this service; he is not worthy of the job.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley) —Order! We have no time to call any more speakers than there are by leave.

Debate (on motion by Senator Parer) adjourned.