FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING,
MP
INTERVIEW WITH MIKE WILLESEE, A CURRENT AFFAIR, NINE
NETWORK, 1 JULY 1993
E& OE PROOF COPY
MW: Prime Minister, thanks for your time.
PM: Good, Michael.
MW: You have had varying degrees of opposition and concern about the
Mabo decision, but now In Hugh Morgan you have someone prepared to
lead a campaign which says that in every respect Mabo Is wrong and
dangerous.
PM: Well, there will always be a view put at the extremes of any of these
arguments and I thinK the important thing is for Australians not to be
distracted by that view. I mean it is a minority view, I think, It Is wrong, It
is entirely wrong, it is technically wrong, that's the key point. The
Important thing is that the rest of the country gets on arnd builds a proper
administrative structure just to see this decision of the High Court's
handled and to see justice done to Aboriginal Australians, and
particularly, and as importantly, to see the whole community of Australia
realise that we can't build our society In the future on a Ilie.
MW: What does this mean In political terms, because even National Party
leader, Trn Fischer, concedes there were horrific massacres and
concedes the Aborigines did have cLture?
PM: That Is true. The concept which the High Court overturned this Is the
concept of Terra nullius, land of no one was In legal terms a Ilie. We
have been trying to build a nation on that Ilie for a couple of hundred
years. Well of course it wasn't a land of no one, It was a land of the
Aboriginal people. Now, in other countries treaties were signed, In fact
even in Captain Cook's Instructions from the Admiralty he was asked to
lay claim to parts of the countty with the consent of the natives. The key
word being consent. Well, none of that was ever done, and now
perhaps later rather than earlier, but better late than never, a decision
has been made which says there Is a'n ative title in the common law.
The key point Is, Michael. that we can now get on and give those
Aboriginals who stiil live and have associations with the land, title to the
land. But where a State land manager has Issued a freehold t~ te, such
as one or residence or a mining title, that extinguishes the native title.
So, there is no fear for people worrying about their land, their backyards,
their et cetera.
MW: But there are a lot of fears and a lot of uncertainties, and when Hugh
Morgan runs a campaign like this, even with his conflict of interest
running Western Mining Corporation his emotive claims make it easy
to put him down, even lampoon him, but because people are confused
and uncertain he can prey upon a lot of fears. That makes your job
pretty difficult.
PM: It does, but again we can't have good things, that is wholesome changes
to the way our society functions derailed or put asunder by these narrow
views. The key points for Australians to understand about this decision,
first of all there Is nothing In It to tear whatsoever. The second point I
made to you a moment ago but It Is worth reiterating, native title is a title
subordinate to the Crown, so where the Crown, or the State, or the
Commonwealth has Issued titles that extinguishes the native title. So,
all of the settled areas of Australia, the freehold -titles * of Sydney and
Melbourne and Brisbane et cetera, and the rural lands and the farms of
this country. Those titles have extinguished the native title, the only
place where native title can be claimed and awarded I s where we have
got unalienated Crown land, which is mostly in places remote from the
capital cities and towns and where there Is still a continuing Aboriginal
association or living upon the land.
MW; Where there are -racist attitudes In Australia, and Hugh Morgan refers to
racism quite often, don't you think In those areas H-ugh Morgan's views
might not be found to be appealing?
PM: Well I think probably for anyone who has that kind of view it is tending to
confirm their view, but again, I mean you can't build a society and a
nation on these sorts of things. I have just come back from China and
you look at the huge opportunities in China, Korea and North and South
East Asia In particular, we are taken seriously In that part of the world
because people see us as a nation of substance and particularly a
multicultural country and a nation which has Its act together. It will
matter very much to us In the future, not just at home where It matters
most, but even abroad, that we have this Issue with our Indigenous
people settled. So, calls to narrow sectional views of the variety that Mr
Morgan made won't do anyone any good, and at any rate It Is historically
wrong. The thing about Mr Morgan's points were the ones you took up
yourself, and I might congratulate you on the position you took, and that
was to make it very clear that In the historic context he was wrong, but In
the technical context he Is totally wrong. That is, that this matter can be
settled providing we have competent administrative structures there and
the Commonwealth Is now working on a piece of legislation to do that.
One of the things he said was, we can't validate all the titles from 1975.
That simply requires an amendment to a Commonwealth, the passage
of a piece of Commonwealth legislation, which I told the Premiers I am
prepared to do. So you can forget that as a problem as well. So,
technically he was wrong, historically he was wrong, but worse than that
he doesn't do anything for the peace and good governance of Australia.
MW: In view of the fact that he does have an audience of indeterminate size,
may It be, I would like to put a couple of his points to you. He says that
Aboriginal demands that a few years ago were laughable have now been
given legitimacy by Mabo.
PM: Before they knew that a native title existed In the common law, they
sought land because of the spiritual and traditional association of
Aboriginal peopie with the land. It Is not the view a non-Aboriginal
person has of land, we see It having an aesthetic or an economic use.
They have a totally different association with land. Now formerly, they
were asking for land rights. That was land conferred on them by the
Parliaments of the State and the Commonwealth. Where Mabo Is
different, It Is not a conferred right, It Is a more dignified right, It's a right
which exists as a right In the common law. But again, it is limited only to
where Aboriginal people can prove that they have maintained an
association with it, lived on it, or had an economic use with it. And for
most Aboriginals, this is the key point, and one that Mr Morgan doesn't
acknowledge, most Aboriginals have been pushed off their land and
dispossessed of their land, and therefore can not make a native title
claim stick.
MW: Morgan says that all property titles in Australia, all, have been devalued
as a result.
PM: That Is sheer extravagance of language, it is totally untrue. It is
absolutely untrue, and it is a statement not worthy of him making.
MW: And he takes up the cry of his people, the guilt Industry. What does that
mean?
PM: Well it Is nothing to do with guilt, It Is to do with, as I said before, the lie
that sat under the earlier court judgements about the concept of Terra
nullus, the Latin for land of no one. I mean it was a land of people when
Europeans came here. So to put that right, to set that wrong to a right Is
not to do as he says.
MW: He says that people In the guilt Industry have difficulty In understanding
that when offered a choice between walking across the desert or riding
In a Toyota an Aborigine will choose today to ride In the Toyota. And
that can sound pretty stupid, except he has a point that he Is aiming at a
target audience, he Is saying that that necessity of choice means you
wipe out the weak culture, the weaker culture. Now there may be an
audience for that message out there.
PM: Well, so what's our society built on? The stronger parts of each part of
our society wipes out the weaker parts.
MW: I think that is what he Is saying.
PM: I am sure you take the view, and I certainly do, one feature of Australia
which I think most of the world acknowledges positively and that Is the
great tolerance of the Australian society. I happen to think that that
tolerance comes from a very deep seated sense of democracy. We
have such commitments to democracy in this country that people accept
the right of other people to be different. But If we get to the stage of
saying tolerance goes and it Is only the strong that prosper economically
and socially, god help us as a society. In other words these wealthy
people who think they can put themselves up In their places with barbed
wire round their front yards, that's what they would end up with in the
sort of society that Mr Morgan wants to tell us that exists. It Is a very,
very narrow view.
MW: That Is the basic underlying message Isn't It? That they were going to
die out anyway, so let's not have any guilt Industry.
PM: Yes, well so what do we do, as you said I think very poignantly to Mr
Fischer, well what if some other stronger society wants to Impact
themselves upon us, would we accept that we should give way to them.
At what stage do the Individual rights and dignity of the human person
matter. At what stage do we say our society is built on a sense of
democracy and a right of dignity for each person. I mean that's what
makes our society tick, not how strong we are, that's not how Australia
has come this far for so long. And I should think that It should never
change from that.
MW: Prime Minister, I would like to show you now what Mr Morgan had to say
about you yesterday.
HM. The Prime Minister Is believed to be a great admirer of Napolean and
one can see similar qualities of leadership in the two men. But I believe
there is, that In taking up the cause of Aboriginal separatism that the real
agenda of the so-called reconciliation process the Prime Minister Is
following Napoleon on the bitter road to Moscow.
MW: Prime Minister.
PM If there was anyone In that period I Should like to take a lesson from it
was Thomas Jefferson who was a contemporary of course of
Bonaparte's and who drafted the American declaration of Independence
with those immortal words ' life, liberty and the pursuit of human
happiness'. Now It would do Mr Morgan well to read the US Declaration
of Independence and may be as well the Gettysburg Address from
President Lincoln to understand what has been the mainstream of
endeavour in that country In terms of dealing with Indigenous people.
MW: Prime Minister, putting aside Morgan how do you handle those fears and
uncertainties that do exist about Mabo In Australia?
PM: To get on with it Michael, the States and the Commonwealth should get
on with It and put down a body of administrative law very simply to hear
native title claims and when they have been heard and determined to
award them. This wili happen largely In areas removed from the capital
cities and the provinclal towns of Australia, removed from the pastoral
areas, the freehold areas In particular. It can be done, the framework
which I spoke to the Premiers about in Melbourne is a very adoptable
one, we have now rejoined in negotiations to try and push that to some
sort of finality and rather than regard this as a probiem, people should
understand it for what it really Is and that Is an opportunity an
opportunity to set right a wrong, to overturn a legal lie and to actually puli
our country together on a basis of equality where the Indigenous people
of Australia have rights equal to the non-Aboriginal people In this
country. There Is a huge opportunity for us In this and If we sort this
problem out In this country with our indigenous people our reputation
and the estimation of those around us In Indonesia, In China, In North
and South East Asia will go up even further and have a material, social
and economic Impact upon us. So it is very important that we get this
right and I believe we can, and-not just that we Will, do it.
MW: Prime Minister, thanks for you time.
PM: Thank you Michael.
ends