Senator FAULKNER (8:25 PM) —It is important that the Senate gets this issue right because the Howard government to date has shown both a complete unwillingness and a total incapacity to do so.

The approach of the Prime Minister to native title has been insensitive, narrow minded and mean spirited. He has consistently refused to listen to those who have a different view from him. Right from the start, the government set this bill up to become a double dissolution trigger. The bill was to be the vehicle to deliver a poll-driven and socially divisive race election and with that agenda as the basis of their approach the government has thwarted our attempts to work constructively on this issue and negotiate in good faith. They have not been willing to compromise at all.

On the other hand, I think it is also important to remind the Senate that, far from being obstructionist, the Labor opposition has bent over backwards to work with the government and with all stakeholders to try to come up with a workable solution. We did not block this legislation last year. We passed the bill even though more than 80 per cent of our amendments were defeated. We felt that what we did achieve with our successful amendments was a more acceptable piece of legislation that at least had some chance of survival in the High Court. We validated titles that were potentially invalid. We were successful in making the legislation subject to the Racial Discrimination Act and we were successful in retaining the right to negotiate. We still contend that the bill, as amended and passed by the Senate, is one that should be acceptable to the government. It took into account the needs of all stakeholders.

Even at this late stage, we believe that, if the government starts to show some good faith, it is still possible that a bill can pass with broad support from the Senate, and then the ugly threat of a divisive, race-based double dissolution election can be averted. We do not want to fight an election that promotes division within the community and where the government will try to exploit community fears and prejudice. However, we believe that this legislation, unamended, is unconscionable and should not be passed by the Senate.

There really is no better indication of the government's motives on native title than John Howard's own advertising campaign which was exposed by the Labor Party during recent Senate estimates committee hearings. John Howard's own office was responsible for devising two newspaper advertisements on native title and having them exhaustively focus group tested. One of those was inspired by John Howard's infamous performance on the ABC's 7.30 Report where he held up a map of Australia, 78 per cent of which was stained brown, declaring that the brown represented the area of land that may be subject to native title claim. The other advertisement was based on a photograph of a corrugated iron humpy entitled `The Australian dream'.

The Prime Minister's office asked the Office of Indigenous Affairs to provide the text and directed the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to book $600,000 worth of newspaper advertising space. These ads were to appear, of all things, over the Australia Day weekend. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Liberals considered that the Australia Day weekend was the most appropriate time to launch such damaging and divisive advertising. I think this exercise provides a very instructive insight into what you could expect during a John Howard orchestrated double dissolution election campaign on native title.

But beyond John Howard's election agenda, beyond the next election, more than anything, unless it is amended this legislation will deliver uncertainty to all stakeholders. There will be ongoing uncertainty of title, uncertainty of rights, uncertainty of laws and uncertainty over business and livelihoods. Yesterday's High Court decision on the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act is proof of that. All the double dissolutions in the world will not save unconstitutional legislation. Yesterday's High Court decision, properly analysed, must send a warning signal to the government. The risk with the legislation before the parliament today is that, if the government does not accept reasonable amendments to its bill, we will see years of endless litigation and we will see years of social division.

A prudent approach would see the government back down from its brinkmanship. It would see the government work with us now to achieve a workable and acceptable solution to all parties. For the Labor Party, especially after yesterday's High Court decision, it is critical that an amended bill be subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. For the Labor Party, the right to negotiate must be retained. Of course the other risk is that, if John Howard's legislation passes unamended, it will be decimated by the High Court and we will have to start all over again. The bitter irony of such an ordeal will be that the next government, of whatever political persuasion, will inevitably have to revisit and embrace our amendments to make the legislation workable.

This debate does have international significance. It has ramifications for Australia's standing in the international community. We will not stand by and see Australia's reputation at risk of being sullied on race issues. We will not be silent as Australia risks losing its high standing as an advocate for racial tolerance and indigenous rights. We will not be silent if the Howard government's policies see us become an international pariah on these issues.

But this bill not only affects our international standing. Most importantly, it will deter mine the way that Australia treats its indigenous people. This bill may on the face of it be a bill about land management and a new layer of land title which the High Court recognised in the Mabo decision. But at the heart of this bill is a moral issue. Do we turn our backs on our indigenous people? Do we insult them by allowing this bill to go through unamended? Do we wind the clock back prior to 1967 in our treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and say, `For a brief few years you had native title. But now we'll give you bucket loads of extinguishment'? I just want to say this: the opposition in the Senate refuses to allow Australia to go down this path without putting up amendments and without supporting other amendments which will take the discrimination out of John Howard's divisive bill.