Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

There are a number propositions I wish to put. The opposition is not intending to support the suspension. Firstly, these matters of native title have a long history of important and sometimes difficult debate, in this chamber particularly—probably before most of us were here—and throughout the Australian community. We believe that native title needs to be dealt with with care, with consideration and with due consultation with Indigenous Australians, because this goes to their land rights, their property rights, their human rights and their personal rights. The opposition has been seeking to work constructively with the government on this matter.

Just to give some history about this, the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 makes significant changes to the Native Title Act. We do not believe that it should be rushed through the Senate. I make the point that the government guillotined debate on 16 February this year. Debate on the bill only commenced in the Senate yesterday, and only three speakers have spoken to the bill. The opposition has made clear, time and time again, that we are willing to work with the government in relation to amendments and in order to ensure not only the passage but also the proper form of this legislation. The fact is, this bill was pushed through the House without debate. The government then only allowed a single day for a Senate committee to conduct hearings into the bill. This was despite 61 organisations and individuals making thoughtful and detailed submissions on the bill. That committee's work identified many deficiencies in the bill, and there have been multiple rounds of amendments with limited consultation on them. The last amendments were provided to the opposition on—I think—Monday night, and then there were amendments to those amendments, as I recall, on Tuesday night. If the Attorney is concerned about the delay on this, frankly, he should look at his own competence, because presenting multiple rounds of amendments, and amendments to amendments, on the days you are seeking to pass a bill is no way to conduct negotiations, or to conduct discussion and consultation on this issue.

In terms of the assertion as to what commitment was made, the correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow assistant minister for Indigenous affairs and the shadow Attorney-General was very clear. We said, 'Subject to those amendments being drafted appropriately and proper consultation taking place, Labor stands ready to work with the government to enable the swift passage of this legislation in the next sitting of the parliament,' which is obviously the winter sitting, which commenced on Tuesday, 9 May and concludes on the 22nd.

Because the government has frankly mishandled the consultation and amendment process—including some amendments being drafted in the Attorney's office itself, I am advised, which is an odd way to conduct these matters—it now wishes to upend the Senate and demand that we continue to sit tomorrow. This is after the government itself putting different legislation on first, as people might recall. The minister, Senator Cash, as she is entitled to, chose to engage in quite a lengthy debate on the PaTH legislation. Yesterday when Senator Ludlam moved a 74(5) motion, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senator O'Sullivan, frankly, took the bait. That is fine. Senator Ludlam is entitled as a Green to move something, but they took the bait and had a long debate. Now they want us to fix it up by staying here.

The opposition have said we will cooperate. We will give up some general business time. We can finalise the actual content of the debate. It will mean that the final vote would have to be held in the June sittings—we accept that. But in terms of certainty we have made clear our agreement to the bill by a public statement—Senator Dodson's contribution to this chamber, as well as the shadow Attorney-General's contribution. So I think the certainty is clear.

Finally, I want to make this point—because I can see Senator Canavan preparing his notes and I am sure the Greens will speak. I really object to the way in which native title is being used as a proxy for the Adani debate. I really object to it—on both sides. Native title is too important to be used for those frankly base political purposes by both the Greens and the National Party.