TEL:
AA PRIME MINISTER
"" SCRIPT or TEZ VKa KXWSTZi, Tm RON P. Jr. K mW
OPIMG RDMRS, PMSS CO PEPNCB, cCO= NIL OF AISTMNLAT
GOVEMO S NUT=*, PARLZIMSM HOUSE, WLBOMMIE, 9 JU2
1993
3603 PROOF COPY
I thought I would give you just a few preliminary remarks
and then take some questions.
As you know the Council of Australian Governments in its
second meeting has met now for two days with a fairly
extensive agenda which has ranged over a number of
issuesj, the main one being the response to the High
Court's decision in the Mabo case and then other microeconomic
issues which are covered in the Communique which
lists a fairly extensive range of issues which we
considered later this morning and into the early
afternoon, after we concluded the discussion on Mabo.
I am happy to take questions about those things. Let me
just say a few things now about the Mabo decision and
take questions from you.
There was not unanimous agreement to the package proposed
by the Commonwealth and the package which we had
discussed through yesterday with the States, if you like
the amended proposals.
I am disappointed with this# but by the same token what
must emerge from this is a comprehensive response to the
Mabo decision. What we had at the meeting was
undercurrents of the view that there was only a grudging
recognition of the High Court's historic decision and a
tendency to view Mabo not just as a problem requiring
bnly a minimalist solution as just a problem requiring
only a minimal solution. There wasn't a preparedness on
the part of some of the Premiers to give effect to the
principles of the Mabo decision; that is to set up the
T9. Jun. 93 17: 15 No. 030 P. 01/ 03
TEL: 9. Jun. 93 17: 15 No. 030 P. 02/ 03
2
mechanisms to hear and dispense native title that is
the principal core matter that we should have mechanisms,
tribunals, set up under a framework of Commonwealth
-guidelines to operate in the states under State
legislation to hear and award native title. The Premiers
would not agree to this, in particular Premiers Kennett
and Court, would not agree to this and as a consequence
we were unable to advance the mechanics of a response to
the High Court decision..
There a num-er of other issuss which I'm sure you will
ask me about and I will be quite happy to respond to you
On. Towards the end of the day, the end of discussions later
this morning Premier Kennett and others tried to pull
together %, text which they wanted me to accept which of
course paid no zecognition to the problem at hand at all.
And the point I made to them is that the COAG the
Council of Australian Governments is an executive body
charged with an executive function and they are requiring
of the Commonwealth that we execute an executive act to
validate titles back to 1975 and pcovide compensation
that they would execute no executive act what so ever to
give affect to the Mabo decision. In the text that
Premier Kennett wrote just before I indicated to them
that it was not acceptable to me or the Commonwealth
government, the first point was to accept the High Court
judgement in Mabo that there is native title. So they
are suggesting to me as Prime Minister of the
Commonwealth that we should take away trom the meeting as
some sort of concession from them that they accept the
High Court judgement in Mabo because they were disputing
the fact that the High Court can make law and I said to
them, what do you want me to say, that you accept that
the High Court judgement in Mabo, there is native title.
Well, you have to accept it, the Court said it, there is
no appeal from the Court's decisi. on, there is no privy
council, It is an absolute position.
The second part of their text was that the Commonwealth
should then validate all the leases and provide
compensation, but the third part and this is the point I
tested them on, was that in their text they should
establish procedures to hear and resolve issues raised by
claims for native title and I had said to them well, hear
and resolve claims for native title. No, they said no,
we won't have any text which says will hear and resolve
claims for native title. We'll have text which says only
we will hear and resolve issues raised by claims for
native title. So I said let me get this straight, you
want to the tommonwealth to validate all these leases,
TEL: bW36 .03/ 03
3
pay all the compensationof eighteen years of leases
across the country and you want me to say, to say of to
me that you will accept the High Court decision in
respect of Mabo and that you will only establish
procedures to hear issues, you won't give primary effect
to establishing the mechanisms of hearing and awarding
native title.
I know they have told some of you that we wanted to go
beyond Mabo. Well, we see the Mabo decision as an
opportunity to deal with policy towards Aboriginals In
terms of the reconciliation process and there are issues
there which I am happy to talk to you about.
But the core thing was that they wouldn't agree to the
primary ijsue end that was setting up a system of
tribunals to ' heara nd award native title and not would
they ac-cept the principle of where ever practicable to
protect native title from extinguishment. We said there
is no problem about title co-existing so why say to an
Aboriginal person who may have a native title that there
is a mining grant been issued which may take ten years,
why extinguish that persona title when in ten years time
the mining is finished. Why shouldn't the title revive
after the ten years? Why can't there be co-existence of
title and a revival of the title when the mining is
finished. No, they wouldn't accept the principle of nonextinguishment
of native title.
So in the end they wouldn't give effect to the proposals
which the Commonwealth put up. The Commonwealth
addressed all this in a discussion paper and a 33 point
document. Premier Court told me he had spent four months
with legal advice on this, all Premiers told me that they
had had extensive legal advice, they had our document and
the 33 point plan and yet they said they couldn't agree
to what were nine paragraphs of text encapsulating the
core points. So I said in that case the Commonwealth, if
there is no package, the Commonwealth will not be part of
any partial arrangement or partial solution and that the
Commonwealth would have to reconsider its position as too
would the States.
I am happy to take your questions.
ends