PRIME MINIS3TER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
INTERVIEW WNTH PAUL LYNEHAM, 7.30 REPORT, ABC
19 OCTOBER 1993
E& OE PROOF COPY
PL: Prime Minister, welcome to the program.
PM: Thank you, Paul.
PL: I would like to try to get a run down in simple terms please, of what
your so-called new deal for black and white Australia really means in
practice. To start with how much of Ausl: ralia do you think will end up
in Aboriginal hands as Native Title land?
PM: Well, a substantial part of the unaliensited crown land of the north
western part of the country.
PL: Does that mean, as Richard Court says, up to 95 per cent of Western
Australia?
PM: No, that is not right. That is not right. But the point is that freehold is
protected in this. That is, anyone who holds a freehold title has
extinguished Native Title, so that's all the! backyards as they say. And
most varieties of lease hold. I mean it can be the small lease hold of a
bee keeper leasing a bit of land for bees or something. But, you know,
all the commercial, pastoral, extinguished, so we are down to crown
land where Aboriginal people are either living now, or can establish a
traditional link. That is, what the High Court said. The High Court said
that there is a Native Title in the Australian common law, flying from
Aboriginal traditional custom and title, bul. what this package is about is
putting flesh on those bones. That is, to develop a body of
administrative law to hear claims for Native Title, to see who is entitled
to them, to grant them, to protect Native Tritle, and at the same time do
it in a way that keeps land management in Australia for mining, for
farming, for tourism running smoothly.
œ 0* 0N 2. T: OZ œ 6* 13O6T : 131
PL: So, all those leases granted between 1788 and the 1975
Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, there is no question mark
over them at all?
PM: No, they are all valid. A couple may be invalid by virtue of Native Title,
or the interaction of other laws.
PL: Just a couple?
PM: Well it may be like, for instance, the famous one, the Wik one in
Queensland, where there was an alleged breach of duty, fiduciary
duty, by the State of Queensland. I mean, you will have some of those
claims.
PL: Well what happens to those ones?
PM: Well, in that case that one is validated. But they will be validated
under this legislation, they will become valid leases under this
legislation.
PL: Can Aboriginal groups go back through the legal system and try to?
PM: What the Aboriginal groups decided last night was to give up the
option of looking for any rights, which might be residual rights, in
invalid leases, which in this process we're making valid. In other
words, let me just sort of make this simple for people, if there is a
grazing property and it is a pastoral lease, it is now invalid, we make it
valid, but there could be some residual Native Title rights. That is the
right to walk across the land, or to fish, or to hunt, or something like
that. Last night the Aboriginal community gave up that thin sliver of
uncertain rights to take from the Government a better proposal and
that was to turn Aboriginal pastoral leases, not non-Aboriginal, but
Aboriginal pastoral leases into a form of Native Title. So, to answer
your question let me come at this way, Paul. If the Aboriginal
community are not prepared, or interested in challenging residual
rights on invalid leases, why would they tother with valid leases?
PL: Because the Opposition says there is still a lot of uncertainty.
PM: Yes, but that is the spoiling game that John Hewson and Peter Reith
have played. Here we have a package which has the support of the
Aboriginal community, which has today been given support by the
States, most of them, by the pastoralists, by the miners, the only
people out of step is the Federal Opposiion. Because basically, their
game is to spoil whatever game is on, whether it is the Budget game,
or the Mabo game. And this is to important a matter, too great an
opportunity, too historic a moment not to seize, to get that question of
dispossession which is at the core of the problem of Australian
reconciliation between Aboriginal and ron-Aboriginal Australians, to
S2O' N ZT: OZ œ 6' 130' 6T : 131
get that back into repossession on theso areas where Native Title can
be established.
PL: Then we have got leases between 1975 and the end of this year.
Now, some of them may, when you look back now, be a bit dubious, a
bit of a shadow over them.
PM: Yes.
PL: What happens to them?
PM: Well they will be validated under legislation. The problem was, the
Commonwealth hasn't issued these, tho States have, but the States
can't validate them because of the problem of the Racial Discrimination
Act, they can only be validated in a racially non-discriminatory way.
They need Commonwealth legal protection to validate them, this
package has that protection, it has beon agreed with the Aboriginal
community. So, all of those leases signed between 1975 and 1993 will
now be validated.
PL: Pastoral leases, mining leases, tourist lea~ ses?
PM: Commercial leases, you know, small farming leases, all manner of
leases.
PL: Yesterday, you were saying that pastoral leases should not extinguish
Native Title. Last night you agreed that Ihey should. Why the change,
and what does it mean in effect.
PM: Well what I said to the Aboriginal people I negotiated with last week,
look, I will take to Cabinet the notion that there are two notions, that a
pastoral lease extinguishes Native Title a~ bsolutely, or a pastoral lease
extinguishes Native Title to the extent th-t it is inconsistent with Native
Title. That's what they asked me to take to Cabinet. This did
introduce for some pastoralists some uncertainty, although, in fact the
primacy of their lease was 100 per cent protected. But to remove it,
the Aboriginal people made a judgement, really how much is in this for
us, how many of these thin sliver of rights, of uncertain rights, would
we actually get? And given that the Government then last night gave
them a different offer to turn many pastoral leases owned by them into
a form of Native Title..
PL: They chose that.
P M: They chose that.
PL: The advantage for them in that, is whatI, A lease can expire a Native
Title can never expire?
D/ iOd SLO* ON T: OZ œ 6* 13O6T : 1311
PM: Well the title can be surrendered, and because it will be a Native Title
equivalent, it won't be pure Native Title, it will be a Native Title
equivalent. It could probably, technically~ be sold, but what it means is
this that as already many large pastoral leases say in the Kimberley
of Western Australia or the Northern Territory or Queensland, if
Aboriginal people buy new pastoral leases with some of the funding
from this package, the land fund, thign instead of simply having
pastoral lease status, they go to a muc~ h more secure title and one
which is based on the Maba principles of a connection and a traditional
association with the land. So, it was for them, I think, a win, win
situation and by dropping off to the extent of the inconsistency point, it
was a win for the pastoral industry.
PL: Are tax payers up for a big compensatio~ n bill for validating all these
leases?
PM: Probably a moderately sized one, but ovEor twenty years. It will be only
payable when the leases are validated.
PL: Hundreds of millions of dollars?
PM: I would think at least that, but over a longj period of time. Understand
this Paul, these are for valid native title that was rendered invalid by
this process. In other words, today many of these leases which were
signed between 1975 and 1993 are sitting on valid native titles. If you
wish to invalidate them you pay compensation the same as if you
wish to use a non-Aboriginal Australian's land for some other purpose
by a government then you pay compensation the same principle is
there. The key point is, I think, what we sought to do here is to marry
the twin demands of justice for Aboriginal people and an efficient
system of land management and I think, the Bill achieves both of those
objectives.
PL: What happens if on land that is proved to be native title land the
Commonwealth wants to put a defence ba3se or do something else in
the national interest?
PM: Well, the Commonwealth can acquire or resume native title land the
same as it can acquire or resume non-Aboriginal land.
PL: And if some major resource is discoverod and it is decided in the
national interest, this Must be developed, say a giant gold mine or
something?
PM: Right, well, what we have done there is all the economic use questions
are reserved to the states. So, a state land manager, that is a state
Mines Minister or a state Lands Minister can issue a grant of interest
over native title land; there is a process of negotiation and a tribunal,
but if the tribunal recommends against the~ economic interest a state
/ 170' d S2-OON ZT: OZ œ 6'* 63O6T : 131
minister can override that tribunal in tha state interest. That is a key
part of the Bill, that protects the economic interests in the hands of that
state. That is why you have got Premier Kennett today and Premier
Goss today coming out saying it looks 41 fair package from our point of
view.
PL: And what if there is say, a state forest a national park or a beach on
land that is found to be native title?
PM: On national parks, on beaches the Bill provides a right of access to
beaches which the public now currently enjoy. So it allows the states
to legislate to protect access to beaches as the current access would
be there for say, you know, beaches which are in areas where a lot of
Aboriginal people live. That would be maintained. For state forests
there can be a native title claim over state forests, but in a sense that
doesn't change the forest unless there is an economic land use
application in which case the state ministers decide that too. So the
Bill has got all the right balances in ii: and that is why I think, the
Aboriginal negotiators here said What are our core interests? How
do we advance the interest of our people? How do we repossess our
formerly dispossessed land? But, how do we do it in a way that keeps
the economic interests of Australia going~? That is what our job was
to develop a Bill that satisfied all of these things. I do honestly think
this is a very historic Bill and it will go a very long way to meeting the
problem of dispossession and will advance materially the whole
process of reconciliation.
PL: You have also done a deal with the minor parties in the Senate over
the Budget, costing $ 144 million by 1996-97. Does this mean now that
all these tax measures go through?
PM: It will mean that the wholesale sales ta): measures which are roughly
around $ 2 billion will pass. It really means the bulk of the
Government's Budget will go through.
PL: When?
PM: Well, in the next week or so. It maybe in the course of this week Paul,
but in the next week or so. That will mean that the Budget the
Government's original intention will be. to track the Budget down
towards 1 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 and it will also mean that the
tax cuts will be paid on time in November
PL: Why couldn't there have been a deal like this weeks ago because the
Treasurer was being too macho?
PM: No, I think that the Senators that is the! Green Senators have only
now decided close to the voting where their position is. We arrived at
œ ZL 0N 2 T: OZ œ-6-10061 j
6
a position with the Democrats some woeks ago as you remember and
we have also had discussions with Sena~ tor Harradine.
PL: So it has been the Greens, not Labor'? They've been intransigent?
PM; I originally said to them at the time we mnet the Democrats, could we sit
down and negotiate the passage and I ion't think they felt comfortable
about it then. They are obviously more comfortable now, but the good
news for the country is that the Budget will go through largely in terms
of its funding and that in tracking down 10 a deficit of around I per cent
of GDP, it will be about one third of the American deficit. Remember
when Vice-President Al Gore cast his vo~ te in the American Senate and
there was a big cheering? They are going to be at 3 per cent of GDP
deficit we will be one third of that. So this is a very good budget for
the medium term, particularly now as the recovery is starting to come
through with some strength.
PL: Wouldn't it be a good idea in the future i: o start negotiations with these
groups a heck of a lot earlier? Have you learnt anything from this
yourself?
PM: Well, you can't do it earlier than the day you present the Budget. And,
of course, you understand what the corn problem is here it takes 38
votes in the Senate to block the Budget, 36 of them are John
Hewson's. So it is his opposition in the Senate are the villains in the
peace. The two Greens are 36 votes short of being able to bale any of
these measures up. The only reason~ they were able to do it Is
because John Hewson and the Liberal party broke the conventions of
Australian politics in not passing the Government's Money Bills in the
Senate. You might recall Paul, in the eltiction campaign I said when it
was not clear how the election would be resolved, I said a Labor
opposition would pass a conservative government's Money Bills in the
Senate including the GST. No such show of principle has come from
the Liberals, they have just run the spoiling game on the Budget and
they have run the spoiling game on Mabo and they have been now
sidelined on the Budget and sidelined on Mabo and Premier Kennett's
remarks today and Premier Goss' remark5s today makes that very clear
on Mabo, and the Greens and Senator Harradine and the Democrats
today make it very clear on the Budget too.
PL: Thanks for your time.
PM: Thank you Paul.
ends
SZO* 0N . T: OZ 9œ 6-13O-6T :-131