Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:

That this bill be now read a second time.

upon which Senator Bolkus had moved by way of amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate notes that:

(a) The High Court of Australia in its 1992 Mabo decision, found that a system of native title to land emerging from the traditions, laws and customs of indigenous Australians pre-existed the legal system that has been implemented in the time since European settlement, and further found that native title has survived despite later grants of interests in some places, and is merged within our common law;

(b) the Native Title Act 1993 was the first attempt to manage native title claims emerging from the High Court finding, and was inevitably destined to be amended in the light of practical experience and further Court decisions;

(c) in taking office in 1996, the Government accepted the responsibility of integrating the concept, expression and exercise of native title into the social and legal framework of this nation, a responsibility that was initially taken up in 1993 by the Keating Labor government;

(d) the Wik decision of the High Court in 1996 was an inevitable and desirable part of a process whereby an emerging body of case law gave better definition to a legal concept, and deserved a prudent and measured legislative response from the Government;

(e) the response of the Coalition in government mirrored its response when in opposition in 1993, in that it chose a divisive, negative and politically opportunistic approach to an issue of historic importance;

(f) the Government, in seeking to amend the 1993 Act, has been driven by a desire to appease sectional interests opposed to the concept of native title, rather than any aim of finding a workable model acceptable to all stakeholders;

(g) the Prime Minister's self-styled "Compact with the miners and pastoralists" is a betrayal of the compact with the Australian people that is intrinsic to his office;

(h) in rejecting the compromise offered by the amended bill passed by the Senate in December 1997, the Government added further dimensions of uncertainty and social division to a process that, to be successful, has always demanded government with insight, leadership and a sense of justice and equity;

(i) the Government promoted needless uncertainty and potential economic loss in rejecting the validation provisions passed by the Senate in December 1997;

(j) an ever increasing number of unsustainable multiple, overlapping and ambit native title claims continue to mount up on the Register of the National Native Title Tribunal as a result of the Government's failure to accept the workable threshold test contained in the 1997 Bill.

(k) Australia's standing in the international community continues to be compromised by the Government's approach to native title that will see the erosion of the few rights our indigenous peoples have had recognised since European settlement, in a relationship otherwise blighted by their dispossession, the destruction of their cultures and social dislocation;

(l) genuine reconciliation with our indigenous peoples will be impossible without fair and decent dealing with native title;

(m) the bill before the Senate is fundamentally unsound unless substantial amendments are made, including:

(i) amendments to ensure fair and constitutional validation, including provisions in respect of notice provisions and compensation on just terms;

(ii) the enhancement of provisions which, whilst giving validation where necessary and certainty of tenure to all parties, preserve the character of the amended Native Title Act as a special measure for the benefit of indigenous Australians;

(iii) the amendment of a multitude of provisions which detract from a fair and just balance of the rights and interests of all stakeholders and which compromise the amended Act's capacity to withstand constitutional and legal challenge;

(iv) the reinstatement of an effective right to negotiate where there is dealing in land or water with exclusive or coexisting native title;

(v) a clear and unambiguous provision to subject processes under, or authorised by, this Bill to the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ;

(vi) the removal of those provisions that seek to impair or restrict indigenous peoples' rights beyond, or in spite of, the common law;

(vii) the removal of gratuitous real or de facto extinguishment of native title;

(viii) the removal of legalistic constraints on the operation of tribunals or courts which have the effect of denying indigenous people a fair chance to pursue native title claims;

(ix) the removal of restraints on indigenous people registering native title claims that could be successfully pursued in common law;

(x) the removal of provisions that would remove processes under the Act from Commonwealth oversight and place them for management and determination in a multitude of State-controlled bodies; and

(xi) the removal of unreasonable impediments to indigenous people having access to their traditional lands; and

(n) in the event of the failure of this Government to proceed with such amendments, a future government will be confronted with an even more complex and demanding task in forming and enacting legislation to address the resulting legal chaos, social division, and economic loss.