TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL MURPHY, DATELINE, SBS
28 JULY 1993
E& OE PROOF COPY
PM: Prime Minister, thanks very much for talking to Dateline.
PJK: Thanks, Paul, nice to be here.
PM: Reaction to last night's Cabinet decision on aspects of your Mabo
deliberations isn't promising. The Aborigines are quite disappointed
and so are the miners. Now how do you bring with you these key
interest groups?
PJK: I think that the bulk of members of the Aboriginal and Islander
community with, I think, a balanced view of this, it is even an ambitious
view, would think that what the Cabinet decided yesterday was a fairly
substantial move in the direction in which they had been arguing, that
was for a right to be consulted, a right to negotiate, and even though
some representatives today have gone through a ritual, nothing is
quite good enough for us line, the thing to do, Paul, is don't believe
that is representative of the broad Aboriginal community. Because I
don't think it is.
PM: So you are saying that the wider Aboriginal community, when they get
to know about this, will like it?
PJK: I think that is very much true. From the contact I have had with
members of the Aboriginal community, I think ever one of them
understood that a generalised veto was never on, that the Government
would never agree that all land management in Australia would be
subject, that is l -and management in respect of native title land, would
be subject to a generalised veto, that was pretty well known from the
start. The job was before the Aboriginal community, and islander
community, to convince the Government that the special attachment
they had to the land was such that they deserved a right of
/ Td OO* N NO: 6 c6I1nC6Z : 131
consultation and negotiation. Now, it is largely and broadly that which
the Cabinet decided yesterday.
PM: But that as you rightly say, obviously it fallIs far short of veto, but I am
wondering exactly what it gives them really, negotiation?
PJK: Well what it means is that if someone wants to develop an economic
interest, the State land manager, a mines Minister, or a lands Minister
wants to issue a grant of issue over that land where formerly, before
yesterday, under any of our proposals, that could be done, they now
have to consult with the Aboriginal community, there can then be a
negotiation, and then it would go to the tribunal. The -tribunal -will then
conduct an inquiry and say yay, or nay.
PM: Now these are State tribunals, are they? Or is there an overriding
Commonwealth one?
PJK: Well it would be a State tribunal where a State tribunal was operating
in the State. But if the principles of the tribunal, or its personnel are
not up to the Commonwealth standard then the Commonwealth
tribunal would operate in a designated State. So, the override would
onily exist for the approved tribunal. So, it would be the
Commonwealth tribunal for Commonwealth lands, it would be the
Commonwealth tribunal if it operated in a particular State, but if a State
tribunal were operating appropriately and properly in a particular State
then that Government would have the override,
PM: That Government would have the override? And that means you need
complementary legislation, doesn't it, will you get it?
PJK: Well I think we will. At any rate there needs to be State legislation in
respect of validation of titles from the period 1975-93 anyway. But if
there isn't satisfactory State attitudes and legislation, satisfactory to
the Commonwealth, then the Commonwealth tribunal would operate in
the State where we, the Commonwealth Government, designated to
operate. So, in other words if a State actually brought the standard of
their policy up to the Commonwealth standard their tribunal would
operate and therefore their Government would have then the right to
override a decision of the tribunal.
PM: But if they don't, then what happens? Does Canberra override?
PJK: If they don't, well let's say that there was a development purpose which
the tribunal said no to, the State would have the option of overriding it,
if it didn't, well, we will just have to argue that out in the public debate.
I think the important thing is, Paul, that once a tribunal does take all
the various information into account about the importance of the site to
Aboriginal people, the prospects of development, that which is
proposed for the development and comes to a decision after a period
/ Z0Od ZOO* ON œ 0: 6 5IT1n[ 3* z3
of months, probably six months, then it will not be an easy matter for a
Government to just come and dismiss all that and override it. In other
words there would have to be weight and moment and circumstance on
the part of a Government, in the hand of a Government, to be able to
override such a tribunal.
PM: Well, Prime Minister, obviously this means that you have still got to
come to an agreement with the State Premiers, you failed to do that at
COAG in Melbourne, are you going to try and do that again with
haste?
PJK Well we are still speaking to them bilaterally, and we are refining these
various principles and we are now in a position to know where we are
trying to get bottom lines, if you like, in the Commonwealth Bill which
we will then take back to them. Now, I should imagine this structure,
States would see an advantage in having their tribunal, as distinct from
the Commonwealth tribunal, being the designated tribunal for a
particular State and therefore that Government preserving the override.
provision. I should imagine that Stat es would find this as an incentive
to cooperate in the scheme.
PM: As I understand the decision last night, the Commonwealth and the
States can override a tribunal decision if it seems to be against the
national interest. Now that means that, for instance, Richard Court
and JeffKennett can do that.
PJK No, they can't. Only if the tribunal which operates in Western Australia
and Victoria, in the instances you mentioned, were to be the State
tribunals. But Commonwealth legislation has precedence and in the
event that Western Australia had a tribunal which didn't do the things
we believe it should do, we would designate the Commonwealth
tribunal to be the operating designated tribunal, and we then the
Commonwealth Government would have the override not Western
Australia.
PM: Ok, it sounds very complex, obviously, are you going to have trouble
selling this, this agreement you reached last night?
PJK Well I think the people in these negotiations understand this, the
Aboriginal community understand that from a position where they had
virtually no right of consultation and negotiation, they now have one.
They have one where they can appeal their views to a tribunal where
an arbitration process can take place. They never had that before
yesterday and of course, the government state or federal as the
case may be would have the effective override. The states would
understand that clearly and they would also understand very clearly
that if their tribunal, in other words if they co-operate and their tribunal
is the designated one then their government gets the override. If they
OO* ON 20: 6 œ 6 6 31
don't co-operate the Commonwealth tribunal will be the designated
one and it gets the override.
PM: Prime Minister, do you think that you can salvage the character, this
whole matter since the Mabo decision by the High Court became a
debate as it were. Can yoj6u salvage this from being a PR disaster,
because it looks painfully like that at the moment?
PJK: Paul, people have got to understand the size of this decision. In most
countries were a supreme court to say that native customs and law
were part of the common law of the country and that there is a native
title in the common law, many countries would take a decade getting
out of such a large change. We are moving this huge decision and
developing a body of administrative law to make it work. The problem
is developing the structure to make it work. We are just developing
this now with great expedition, it may be that in the couple of weeks or
months that this has been going people are having some difficulty
following the trail, but it is so complex and it is such a large change
that the way in which the Cabinet worked yesterday seven hours of
detailed consideration in a policy sense which would do the Cabinet
proud in any circumstance. Any Cabinet in the world I don't think
would be advancing this kind of technical and social issue at this
speed.
PM: How do you get back business confidence. The miners said today it
was unworkable, the decision last night. How do you get back
confidence and how quickly can you do that so that investment, profits
are flowing?
PJK The mining industry and its lobby organisation will always make its
case, but there are similar provisions in state land rights legislation
around the country. They would not say that is unworkable, they are
not entitled to say of this that this is unworkable, but they will make
their bald statements just as some Aboriginal representatives will make
bald statements too.
PMV: Sure.
PJK: Where is the weight and truth of the matter? Answer:-not far below
the surface.
PM: Prime Minister, if I can move on to the republic, another agenda which
you still prosecute with great vigour. Mr Hawke said that perhaps the
states in the fullness of time should be a bolished. Is that helpful
inducing that into the whole debate about a republic?
PJK: 1 I do not see a relationship between that and the republic and that is
why none of that was reflected in the terms of reference for Mr
Turnbull's committee and it is why in the prosecution of this issue the
/ t7O~ d ZOO* ON N: 6 226~ mI nC 67,31
Government will not be relying upon this argument. The principal fact
of the matter is that Australia is a unique place, it is entitled to
represent itself both internally and externally as a country in charge of
its own affairs and that means that there should be as our head of
state an Australian person. That is the key issue how we see
ourselves and we represent ourselves.
PM: Elected by the people?
PJK: That is a matter for discussion. As we expect that is one of the terms
of reference that the Government has given Mr Turnbull and his
committee and they will come back to us on these subjects.
PM: Right, would you personally favour that though?
PJK: I think I would rather wait and see. If you ask me the question and
people say what can be more democratic than the election by the
public at large of a head of state; and the answer is the election of a
representative chamber by the same public. I always believe the
greater the numbers, the closer parliamentary representatives get to
their particuar localities in the communities th e more essentially
democratic is the structure.
PM: OK. if I can just go onto other matters CPI figures out today, not a
bad result. Do you think now interest rates should be cut?
PJK: It is a very good result Paul, at .4 per cent, 1.9 for the year. I was an
adolescent when these numbers were around last in the 1 960s and it
is another one of these things which the public debate has put in its
pocket particularly the media. A few years ago I never heard anything
but inflation. I would get up at a press conference and say we have
had very high employment numbers again for the month, 90,000 of
yeah, yeah, but what about inflation? And I would say inflation -is
coming down, anyway inflation is now down.
PM: Sure.
PJK: It is broken, what I call snapping the inflation stick, it has taken us two
decades to do it.
PM: OK and you have done it.
PJK: We have done it.
PM: So what about interest rates coming down yet again?
PJK. As I said the other day, low inflation does give us scope; that is
continually low inflation and the maintenance of it, does give us scope
to bring down interest rates scope. But again it is a matter of the
)/ SOd zoo*
ambience and the climate at the time Paul. That is, what other rates
prevail in other countries and these require judgements and mature
ones by the Central Bank with the Treasurer to see whether we think
we can lower our margin on which we pay the world and pay domestic
savers the savings.
PM: Prime Minister a final question on foreign affairs. Should the Isra el is
stop shelling and bombing southern Lebanon right now before they
destroy the peace talks completely?
PJK I think Israel is entitled to be concerned about its security position, but
again the quicker that we can see a withdrawal of Israeli forces from
southern Lebanon the better and I think the key here is restraint by all
the parties so that we don't see more bloodshed, more angst and
therefore an ongoing problem.
PM: A permanent withdrawal do you think of those forces. Not to try it on
again?
PJI( These are judgements obviously the Israelis would make, they are
probably different judgements than we would make on these sorts of
incursions.
PMV: OK Prime Minister thank you very much indeed for speaking to us.
PJK-Thank you.
ends
ZOON N0: 6 26* 1n[ 6Z :-13J1