Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Hansard source

I was going to let this debate proceed, because we are very keen to get this done, but there has been such nonsense and such an enormous number of untruths from the last two speakers that I am required to get up and correct the record. The last two speakers, the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Barton, have been questioning why the government has been proceeding urgently with this. We have been proceeding with this urgently because all of the stakeholders in this debate have been asking us to do that. They have been saying that the uncertainty that was created by this decision is something of this parliament needs to deal with quickly. We need to deal with it as soon as possible. Let me give you a sense of the correspondence we have received on this issue from the stakeholders. The National Native Title Council, in a letter to the Attorney-General dated 5 May: 'On this, the National Native Title Council urges the parliament to consider this bill as soon as possible.' It is the stakeholders who have been affected by the uncertainty that was cast by this decision of the Federal Court who have required us to move consistently and quickly on this.

The Labor Party, for reasons that are not quite clear to me, has consistently stood in the way of the parliament dealing with this urgently. We are dealing with it urgently not because we do not respect native titleholders, which I think is an enormously silly argument to make in this place. We are dealing with it quickly because we have been asked by native titleholders to deal with it quickly. That is why the parliament needs to deal with it expeditiously, that is why the government have been moving to deal with it so expeditiously and that is why the government have made dealing with this an urgent priority of our legislative process.

The Senate did not deal with it last time, even though we went to the Senate and said: 'This is urgent. We believe that the Senate needs to sit one more day to deal with it. We believe that it makes sense to extend the sitting hours of the Senate to sit on a Friday.' I would not have thought, for a piece of urgent legislation that so fundamentally deals with land usage in Australia, that that was a particularly big ask. But Labor senators do not work Fridays, apparently. It is work to rule up there. They refuse to work Fridays to deal with this urgent piece of government legislation that every single stakeholder in this debate has been asking us to deal with quickly.

As I have said, stakeholders have consistently and repeatedly urged the parliament to act quickly here. They have repeatedly urged us to get on with it. By the way, because we are so keen to do this, we have accommodated the opposition's requests in relation to this bill. We have sought to work with them. Indeed, I acknowledge, in particular, Senator Dodson's role in making some sensible suggestions, particularly in proposing a roundtable. He has engaged with us very constructively about this. I would have thought that engaging with the government constructively about this is a model that other Labor members might look to and deal with the government in the same way.

See this speech in context