Senator CHRIS EVANS (7:38 PM) —Unfortunately, I do not think this is going to be one of my best contributions, given interruptions and the haste with which I was called originally. But I do wish to continue some remarks I started before the dinner break, because it is important to make a few points in this debate, although, as I said earlier, I think we covered much of the ground the first time around—the first time the parliament dealt with this bill.

I did want to make some further observations. First, I want to try to dispel the myth that somehow this bill is going to fix up the problems that people perceive with native title—that there is going to be some quick fix put in place by the parliament by which those people who are concerned about native title are going to be satisfied and the problem as they see it is going to go away. Of course, that is not going to happen, and those who have created that expectation will have a lot to answer for when they go back to those communities. For 200 years Aboriginal people have been striving for recognition of their rights to the land in this country. Having finally received some recognition, they are not going to give up that recognition lightly and they are not going to walk away from asserting those rights.

For the government to pretend that they can introduce a sunset clause in this bill and create the impression that in six years time all of this will be resolved because the people will have filed a claim and had it dealt with and somehow native title will be fixed is, firstly, a legal nonsense. But it also fails to have any appreciation of the way common law rights of Aboriginal people to native title are likely to develop in this country. We have seen the experience of the development of native title law in other countries, which has taken anywhere between 50 and 100 years. Our very brief experience with our own native title leads me to believe that it will be a long time before the issues surrounding native title are resolved in this country.

That is not to say that the parliament should not act; that is not to say that parliament should not put in place procedures and regulations and laws to help create a structure for the resolution of native title claims and the fair and just recognition of the rights to land of Aboriginals and other stakeholders. But for people to somehow think that this is the end of the process, that what happens in the Senate in the next few days is the end of the process, is quite wrong and extremely misleading. We are at but one stage in a developmental process, and it is a very early stage.

I think the government has made a serious error in not inviting the involvement of Aboriginal people at the early stages of the development of their legislation. The Aboriginal people have a right to be consulted, just as the pastoralists and the miners and other people have been consulted. In my view, without the consensus agreement of all those stakeholders and a broader Australian community consensus, we will not get any constructive development on native title. We cannot legislate in favour of part of the Australian population over the interests of another group of the Australian population. That will not resolve native title issues in this country. We must attempt to legislate for all stakeholders and for all Australians. I think the government has missed that opportunity by choosing to legislate on behalf of what they think are their constituent groups.

I suspect that this process will be repeated sometime down the track, that we will have to debate native title issues again at some future stage, because we have not built a national consensus about the resolution of native title issues and we have not included the Aboriginal people in genuine discussion about their legitimate aspirations. We will at some stage have to do that if we are to make real progress in resolving a whole host of issues that relate to the development of native title in this country. I do want to put down that warning. To think, whether the government's legislation is carried or not, that somehow we are resolving native title issues by this process is a complete fallacy.

I also want to mention my own state of Western Australia briefly, because we have had the most serious difficulties in Western Australia in terms of overlapping claims, particularly in the Kalgoorlie region, with its high level of mining and exploration activity and what has turned out to be a whole raft of competing claims by Aboriginal groups and individuals to native title in that area. Because of the history of Aboriginal settlement in the area and the mining activity, we have a very confused and difficult picture. I think it is fair to say that the Kalgoorlie goldfields region represents the most difficult case in terms of trying to resolve issues associated with native title.

I do want to say that I think there have been some serious errors made by the mining industry, usually the smaller miners, by attempting to buy progress in these areas. There has been a lot of concentration on the fact that so many Aboriginal groups and individuals have sought to lodge claims and make financial settlements with mining companies to allow exploration, but I think it is also the case that a whole range of mining companies have sought to buy favour and buy progress with their claims in a way which has made a rod for their own backs. I think the large mining companies will certainly tell you that.

From our point of view, it does not do us any good to be too critical of those Aboriginal groups or individuals who have sought to take advantage of the situation. The way the system has developed, I think there is fault on both sides, and the behaviour of some of the mining companies has been highly cynical. I think they have now realised that they made a rod for their own backs. The behaviour has become so cynical that in Western Australian recently we saw a mining company—headed by the brother of the Premier, as it turns out—which actually paid for the lodgment of a native title claim over a piece of land on which they had mining exploration permits. That is the level of cynical and, some would say, corrupt behaviour that has developed.

We will have to deal with that, but I think it is fair to say that this legislation goes no great way towards resolving those issues; those claims are lodged and those developments have taken place. Without some general agreement on the principles to be applied or without some serious negotiations and face-to-face discussions on the ground this legislation, whatever its form, will not fix those problems. People have to start dealing with that reality because the legislation is not the panacea for those real practical difficulties that exist on the ground.

I wish to make another point: the right to negotiate is one of the most important aspects of this bill because it is about recognising Aboriginal people as having rights and giving them power. The government seeks in this legislation to reduce that power. I find that very interesting because Senator Herron and others have always argued that the future for Aboriginal people lies in them having independence rather than welfare dependency. That is quite right. But that independence must be built on them having rights and power, and one of the very things that give them rights and power, the Native Title Act, this government seeks to water down. It is because Aboriginal people have been asserting their rights and power in their relationship with mining companies and pastoralists that the government has sought to try to reduce that power. The government must deal with the problem. They cannot have it both ways. Empowering Aboriginal people is a good thing. That is what the Native Title Act in part did and their attempt to water it down does them no credit.

I want to make a point on behalf of Senator Cooney. Senator Cooney, unfortunately, will not be with us for this debate. He is on a delegation. As senators would know, he has taken a very keen interest in the issue and he played a big part in the debate the first time. Senator Cooney, who is a very accomplished parliamentarian, wanted to make the point that despite the great dispute about the history of relationships between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people we have accepted since 1993 the preamble to the Native Title Act, and that includes a clause which says:

(b) to ensure that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders receive their full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture fully entitle them to aspire.

Senator Cooney makes the point that these very laudable objectives contained in the preamble to the Native Title Act have been supported by this parliament and that the government, in seeking to amend this legisla tion, continues to support that preamble by having it remain within the act. Senator Cooney wants me to bring to the attention of the parliament the fact that the government is maintaining that preamble but in his view the government's amendments run contrary to those laudable intentions contained in the preamble. He thinks it would not sit at all well for this parliament, which endorses the preamble, to endorse the government's amendments as well. He sees them as being contradictory and he believes that the amendments passed by the Senate the last time are a much better match for the laudable sentiments that we all profess to share. I do want to put that on the record for Senator Cooney, who is most concerned that he was not able to be part of this debate. I am sure the debate will be poorer for his absence but he remains absolutely committed to the protection of native title and will, I am sure, follow the debate with interest and seek reports on his return.

It is very important that this parliament do all that it can to protect and enhance the rights of Aboriginal people to native title in this country. This is a defining moment in the development of this country and it is essential that this parliament provide the leadership on this issue. Without that leadership Australia will be a much poorer nation.