PRIME MINISTER 139
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
COMMENT ON THIE WEST AUSTRALIAN MABO LEGISLATION
Thc Mabo legislation introduced by the West Australian Government is draconian and
discriminatory, may well be invalid in whole or in part under the RDA, and will result
in massive uncertainty.
* It is a recipe for endless dispute and l itigation, which will bog down land dealings
and smother industry and investment
* it fails even to validate pre-1975 grants and state legislation ( unlike the
Commonwealth proposal); there will be considerable doubt whether this validation
is successful
* there is no clear means of determining who has native title and where
* there is no clcar means of determining what rights are available under native title or
the statutory substitute
* the new traditional usage rights can only be defined by a court where there is a
conflict; this is a recipe rot increasing community disputes and ongoing uncertainty
* the Bill gives Aboriginal people only 12 months to claim compensation for
extinguishment of native title; the only way for Aboriginal people to protect their
rights would be to swamip the compensation system with claims whenever a grant
is made
* the Bill extinguishes a title which under the High Court doctrine could run as high
as exclusive possession, and replaces it with a statutory title deliberately pitched at
the lowest imaginable level of rights to land
* the Bill allows freehold or leasehold to be issued where there is native title and to
wipe out Aboriginal rights; this would make Aboriginal title the only form of
interest in relation to land which could he taken away and given to a third party
without compulsory acquisition
a due process is denied; grants may be made irrespective of any court proceedings
concerning rights of traditional usage
4 the shabbiness is compounded by the schedulc of amendments to other WA Acts
which can be used to deny holders of traditional usage rights important procedural
protections available to other West Australians and give Aborigines no effective
standing or avenue of appeal
* the virtually unfcttcrvd discretion for Ministers to disregard Aboriginal interests
raises serious questions about appropriate checks and balances in public
administration
* there has been not a shred of consultation with Aboriginal people
* the Premier misrepresents important aspects of the Commonwealth proposal, e. g.
hc alleges that it contains no capacity for Aboriginal people to obtain land rather
than money as compensation.
The Bill is an obstacle to the achievement of what Aboriginal people. industry and the
community generally needed a just, workable and certain land management regi me
which took account of Mabo.
It would do damage to Austratlia's international reputation. It would cost the country
in terms of international as weli as domestic investment.
It would polarise the Austr-alian community. It is the antithesis of reconciliation, and a
throwback to an earlier era in which Aboriginal rights were steamrolled whenever
governments or interest groups judged it expedient to do so.
A right which, by definition, has survived for 200 years and derives from occupation of
land for thousands of years before that would be extinguished not much more than a
year after being recognised by the highest Court in Australia.
It has sold out the interests of West Australians Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.
The Commonwealth Government cannot afford to see economic development in a
third of the continent brought to a halt and will protect the national intere'st. Nor is the
Government prepared to stand by and see Aboriginal people disposed of land to which
they have native title.
I reiterate my commitment to a national approach to Mabo which will work in the
interests of all Australians. The Bill shortly to be introduced into the Federal
Parliament would be balanced, fair and workable,
The West Australian Government should get on board.
CANBERRA November 1993