FOR MEDIA
Attached is a letter I have sent today to the Premier of Queensland, Wayne Goss,
concerning the Wik people's claim.
CANBERRA 12 August, 1993
PRIME MINISTER CANBERRA
The Hon Wayne Goss MILA
Premier
Executive Building 2 AUG 133
100 George Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000
My dear Premier
I refer to your letter of 10 August 1993 concerning the
Wik claim and the Comalco operations at Weipa and
Gladstone. You will know from your own officials that my Government
is treating these issues in a serious and concerted way.
You will be aware that the matter was discussed at our
last Cabinet meeting a fortnight ago and that Cabinet
directed a team of officials to produce a considered
paper on the options available to governments. I thought
you understood this.
That work is on track. There have been several
discussions with Queensland officials to ensure that
Queensland's perspective is taken into account. The door
has remained open to talks on any aspect. I made this
clear in my statements to the media on Sunday.
Consultation remains the s * ensible way to address the
question, rather than any effort to build pressure
through public statements.
You must recognise that the issues involved here are not
simple ones, either as matters of law or policy.
obviously we all favour this important project being able
to proceed with security, Aboriginal people being able to
pursue their rights under the law and a just and
satisfactory outcome.
Equally obviously, these sentiments fall way short of
designing a detailed policy or solution. That is what
needs to be done, and what we are doing.
At this point the Commonwealth has only had communicated
to it vague ideas of what you propose. It would be more
helpful to have from you clearly defined proposals. What
exactly does Queensland wish to legislate? And, given
that, what exactly are you seeking in Commonwealth
legislation? I and my Ministers will be discussing the issues on the
basis of a preliminary paper from officials early next
week. While we are willing to consider appropriate
assistance, it would help us to know what you seek.
Indeed, notwithstanding any remarks made by Commonwealth
Ministers, it is hard to see how we can reach firm
conclusions on the scope of any Commonwealth legislation
without this.
In particular, your letter is ambiguous in relation to
the effect of Commonwealth legislation to provide
certainty with riiitlion to the RDA. You should be aware
that it is one thing for the Commonwealth to legislate to
provide certainty where a Government has actively sought
to act in a non-discriminatory way or acted in innocence
and quite another to provide coverage for discriminatory
action or action which may be found to be in wilful
disregard of particular interests, or actions which may
be found to be fraudulent.
This reinforces the need for us to see your detailed
proposals, and for us to talk the detail through properly
rather than you seeking to publicly force the
Commonwealth into a premature and possibly inadequate or
unjust arrangement.
Again, it would be one thing to legislate to remove any
doubt about leases resulting from the necessary ignorance
by governments and others of the existence of native
title prior to the High Court decision in June 13192;
~ quite another to preclude the right of any Australian to
pursue existing legal remedies on grounds not dependent
on the existence of native title.
You may be sure that I and all Commnonwealth Ministers
have this key distinction very much in mind,
notwithstanding any interpretation that may have suited
you, of the Attorney-General's remarks on the scope of
the legislation.
3.
In short, reassuring generalities are not enough. We
need drafted detailed solutions. This is the process on
which m overnment has embarked, and I can only enjoin
you con inue with us in it.
ours a ceraly
7^
P J