TEL: I6. Mar. 5 13?: 19 No. 018 P. 01/ 10
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
16 MARCH 1995
E& OE PROOF COPY
PM: I would like to begin by saying that the High Court decision is an historic
decision a great decision for the Aboriginal community of this country, and
a huge endorsement of the policies of this Labor Government, in respect of
the Native Title Act. It means that, as a consequence of this matter being
decided once and for all that, as a consequence of this Government's
legislation, more will have been done in the last two years than was done in
the last 200 years to guarantee justice for Aboriginal people in terms of their
access to land, with land coming to them as an inherent right, rather than
simply a statute right delivered by some Parliament. It also endorsed fully the
Commonwealth approach to protecting Native Title recognising it, protecting
it and ensuring that workable process exists for land management across
every State and territory. It found that the whole of the West Australian Act
was inoperative and Inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act, and
thereby invalid. The West Australian Act failed because it was racially
discriminatory, that is, it failed because it was inconsistent with the Racial
Discrimination Act. The West Australian Government has no choice now but
to fall into line with the High Court decision, and again I remind people that as
I did in Western Australia a couple of weeks ago, that there has now been
some 8000 grants of interest in land been issued by the Western Australian
Government, a large proportion of which are probably invalid. I have pointed
that out I wrote to the Premier 18 months ago thereabouts telling him that
a continuation of grants of interest in this way was probably Invalid, and now
that has been proven to be the case. The only thing I would say is, the
Commonwealth is, nevertheless, prepared to work with Western Australia to
ensure that issues arising from this decision are addressed cooperatively, and
already we have had preliminary talks at Ministerial level with the Court
Government. But can I say that this reaves a real question for the Federal Coalition it is
impossible for the Federal Coalition to maintain its stated opposition to a
TEL: 16. Mar. 95 18: 19 No. 01
2
balanced approach to the Native Title Legislation. Now you know the
Government has got now two pieces of law into place the Native Title Act
and the Land Fund. The Native Title Act gives Aboriginal people the right to
access to land where they can establish a traditional connection with the land
-a right which has existed before European settlement. Where those rights
have been extinguished, and where Aboriginal people are desirous of reestablishing
that connection with the land, the Land Fund gives them the
possibility of buying that land and making it. These are always the two parts
of the Act, and again I just make the point that I have made to you often we
get progress in this country by victories, by wins. The Native Title Act, and
the Government's Insistence upon It in the Parliament against the
intransigencies of the Senate, was a victory for the Aboriginal people and for
the Government, and so too was the case with the Land Fund which was,
upon its return to the House of Representatives, an unacceptable piece of
proposed legislation. And the Government then introduced it again for the
second time, and the Coalition decided they could not obstruct any further.
It's because of our insistence that the Aboriginal people have now got these
two pieces of legislation into place, but the stated policy of the Federal
Opposition at this point articulated last by Mr Downer -is that he would
consider the repeal of the Native Title Act upon coming to Government. Now
John Howard has made it very clear that he will repeal the Land Fund
provisions when he comes to Government. He now must say where he stands
on the Native Title Act. Do they continue to take the view the wrong and
misguided view that a right of Aboriginal people inherent in the Common
Law, a right which has existed now since before European settlement should
be denied them, and we go back to some sort or statutory provision for the
basis of land? Because what the High Court made very clear, was that the
Western Australian legislation took away these inherent rights, and
substituted a very minimum statutory right, and the taking away of these
inherent rights and the replacement with a minimum statutory right, was not
only contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act, but morally was bankrupt, and
now is the case for John Howard to say where he stands. Is he going to
repeal the Native Title Act, as he says he will repeal the Land Fund Act, or
change it beyond recognition? Or are they finally going to say there ought to
be some justice for Aboriginal people that they are entitled to land which was
theirs as the High Court has said since before European settlement? Are
they finally going to come to terms with the oldest Australians the people
who inhabited this continent before any of the rest of us arrived, and desist
from this sort of view they have that seems to permeate all of their attitudes,
and that is that any inherent right to land for Aboriginal people, runs against
their grain? This is the test for them a test of principle.
I might just complete my remarks by saying that the High Court found 7 to 0
7-nil that the West Australian Act failed because It was Inconsistent with the
racial Discimination Act. It has not only endorsed the Law, It has endorsed
the policy adopted by the Government, and as a consequence, for the first
time In the history of European settlement of this country, Aboriginal people
have now got an Inherent right to land in this country. 8 P. 02/ 10i
TEL 3
J: Prime Minister, are you prepared to talk to the Court Government on the basis
of your original offer that is, including compensation etc even though the
deadline passed in December?
PM: The original offer which we made for compensation and carrying the costs
stands. But it doesn't stand for grants of interest made after the cut-off date
the ones which were done against the Commonwealth law, and against advice
from me.
J: When is that date?
PM: Well you go and look that up I haven't got it in my head right now.
J: Is it still possible.... would it still be possible for the West Australian
Government to attempt to obstruct the workings of the Native Title Tribunals In
some way, and if you think it is, is there anything the Commonwealth
Government can do about it?
PM: It would be very wilful obstruction, It's obstructing against the operation of a
piece of law firstly agreed by both houses of the Commonwealth parliament,
adopted by all of the States of Australia bar Western Australia, against now
an express decision of the High Court, and a very clear one: 7 to zero, 7 to
nothing. At what point does the Western Australian Government feel it has
any legitimacy in its view, and capitulate to what Is very clear national
sentiment of this issue?
J: So, back to the cut-off date you were just talking about would you the
Western Australians might be disadvantaged because of that...
PM: Only by Richard Court...
J: isit fair to disadvantage them because of the actions of their Premier?
PM: This is the advice I gave Richard Court I said on 6PR on Perth, so I am
telling you, " there is a lot of villainy here on the part of the West Australian
Government, and a lot of wilful villainy putting the interests of Western
Australians, and Western Australian businesses, at risk by granting interest in
land which is ultra vires of the Commonwealth Act of Parliament, agreed to by
every other state bar Western Australia". Now, the Western Australian
Government the Premier went out of his way to issue these grants of
interest against the Commonwealth Act under the shadow of what he thought
would be a successful appeal. But against the advice of my letter to him -I
wrote to him, saying don't do this. You must start thinking of the private
interests of Western Australians and not your interests.
J: Isn't he entitled to have his day in court?
PM: He's had his dlay in court, and lost. But, while he was having it, he was
issuing grants of interest, against the law. And, he was told so.
T1EL6: . Mar. 95 18': 19 NO. 018 P. O7'/ 10
TEL: 15. i'ar. 95 i &: 19 No. 018 P. 04/ IC
4
J: So, you're own legislation, the Brandy case which was handed down by the
High Court recently, means that the Native Tribunal can't actually make
binding decisions. Are you going to fix that?
PM: Well, look, at some point, some of the procedural issues In the law, the
Commonwealth will look at but not to the principles. Some of the
procedural issues, but not to the principles.
J: Will that be done this year?
PM: I don't know. I think we need more time to see how the Act is working.
J: Mr Keating, Jeff Kennett today challenged you to adopt the German
presidential system. Would you like to see....
PM: Jeff's becoming a republican is he?
J: . No, he said he was still a monarchist but, he said he would favour the
German system.
PM: He's confused isn't he, poor old Jeffrey.
J: Would you like to see a system where he got a say in who was head of state?
PM:-Let him put his hand up as an Australian and say the Australian head of state
should be an Australian person when he says that he can have a
conversation with me, but, if he wanders around with some sort of attitude
which says that we should still be borrowing the monarchy of another country
but, then, want to be taken seriously in the debate.... no, thank you.
J: He said aspects of the German system appeal to him. He's obviously shifting
ground...
PM: Is he, well, like the rest of us, let him make a shift and we'll see how far he's
shifted.
J: Are you attracted to Sir Zelman Cowan's suggestion of using the selection of
the next Governor General as a test case...?
PM: I haven't thought about the next Governor General, the next Governor
General's position, but, it does make one very clear point; I thought Sir
Zelman's remarks made one very clear point, at the moment, the prerogative
to appoint the Governor General rests with the Government and, fairly
exclusively, with the Prime Minister. And, that's never been the case under
any other option discussed by me, that is, in the future. In other words, at the
moment, the Prime Minister has the right to propose to Her Majesty who the
next person should be. So, all of these people going around saying, well, the
TEL
Prime Minister wants to hang on to this... in fact, the Prime Minister is giving
this away, obviously.
J: How fast do you think the economy is slowing, has the need for tighter Budget
and interest rate policy eased since the end of last year
PM: I think the economy has slowed somewhat, I'm not sure how much. I don't
think that diminishes the case for being vigilant on policy.
J: Has the case for tightening before the Budget diminished from the point of
view of those who are arguing that it is still over heating?
PM: Well, the Government has made it.. The Treasurer spoke, I thought,
eloquently, at the time, about the need for an appropriate stance on fiscal and
monetary policy and I don't see anything that has happened since that should
change that.
J: Is the Government indulgent and complacent?
P M: I don't think it is, but, again, if Gary Gray had issued those things in a press
statement it wouldn't have even been reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The fact that it gets front page lead is a commentary about the news
judgement of the Herald.
J: Prime Minister, John Howard, from what he is saying, is obviously not going to
tell Mr Mctachlan to give back the documents, they're just going to leave it to
McLachlan and his legal team, apparently. What does this say about
PM. Well, I thought his interview, this morning, on John Laws, was extraordinary.
It demonstrates a completely dishonest approach, it says he was party to the
whole tactic in the House. He, as you say, hasn't returned the documents, the
question Is, why does he wIsh to hang on to the documents. He, I would have
thought, had a duty to give us a full list of the recipients of the documents and
a categoric assurance that only one copy was made of the so called ' womens'
document'. He has done none of these things.
But, some of the pieces of the transcript, I thought, were unbelievable. He
says and this is the blatant approach, the glibness, the belief that glib
remarks dressed up in long sentences can somehow obscure what he Is
saying such things as:
" Did you go to the Opposition parliamentary tactics committee
about it? ( JH) Oh, It was discussed among a number of us, yes.
And, did they agree at that meeting, that it should be used?
16 Mar 5 18 I j No .0i8 F .05/
T E L: 1 Mar 5 1&: I9 NO 18 P. O06i1O
6
( JH) Oh, Ian had the authority to ask questions, there's no
argument about that.
And, then he goes on to say:
( JH) " But, I don't feel at least, a bit apologetic about that.
Now, understand what he is saying, there. He's saying: " we discussed the
parliamentary tactic, I understood that Ian McLachlan was intending to
mislead the House of Representatives, and I was party to its misleading".
This is my point, Ian McLachlan resigned because he misled the House, John
Howard knew he was going to mislead the House and was party to It,
therefore, it follows, logically, doesn't it, that he should resign, too. And, I
include the tactic, agreed also, was the throwing of the womens' document
across the Chamber which must have been discussed in the tactics
committee which he agreed to, as well. And then he says, of course, he's
completely sensitive to Aboriginal people. He goes on to say and I thought
that this was exceptionally breathtaking:
( JH) " No, Ithink there is enormous difference between a gratuitous
invasion of privacy of a third party and coming upon some documents
which are involved in a highly controversial dispute."
This is not a highly controversial dispute, this is a regal case. This Is a legal
case, these are legal documents. But, he's saying that because they are
disputed, it is a free-for-all. And, then, Laws is saying:
" I wouldn't use it"
and Howard says:
' You wouldn't use It?"
and he ( Laws) said:
" Well, I'd have to work it out but I think it is a very bad thing."
" So you say you wouldn't use it", says Howard.
( JH) " Well, let's not be too moralistic about it."
No let's not John ( Howard), lets not be moralistic at all. it's incredible, this
stuff. And, then he said:
( JH) " I think Ian McLachlan behaved correctly and I defend
him." Can you believe that? I mean, the gall of it.
TEL: 16 . M ar. 951: 1 NO. 018 P. 07/ 10
7
you endorse the actions?
( JH) Well, yes, I do."
In other words, he endorsed the misleading of Parliament.
J: ( inaudible)
PMV: That Robert Tickner was not the photocopier and the source of dissemination
of the information. He knew that, at the time, when the questions were being
asked. And, he's going on today, this day:
( JH) " I think Ian McLachlan behaved correctly and I defend
him. So, you endorse his actions?
( JH) Well, yes, I do."
J, Mr Keating, going back to the native title...
PMV: Can I just make a couple of other points before I do. He said.-
( JH) ' There were questions asked about it but the nature of
these discussions about any of these questions Is, you always
have to-ing and fro-ing and then the decision is made. I accept
the fact, and I have never disputed it, that I authorised the
asking of those questions.
I believe he told some of you that he wasn't involved in the tactics
committee. ( JH) And I have never disputed it".
You see, the glib... Is it any wonder Bill O'Reilly, the former tax
commissioner, had trouble with him? Is it any wonder, when I lined up as
Treasurer in 1983, desperate for some decent law, desperate for some
integrity in the law, they looked to this government to clean up the tax system.
Then he says:
( JH) And I have never disputed that I authorised the
askingof those questions, I don't try and shift the responsibility
of the blame on to anybody else."
In other words, he's now virtuous, you see. He is now virtuous. And let me
just make a couple of other points I made abroad. He talks about the right of
parliamentarians to represent a constituent. But, Mr McLachlan's obligations
were to his Aboriginal constituents as well as what he might have seen to be
the obligations to the constituent involved in the Hindmarsh court case. How
TEL: 16.1-Har. 95 j : 19 NO-018 P. 08/ 10
8
come his obligations to a constituent were only an obligation to the
protagonist in the Hindmarsh Bridge case. And then, I made the point, and I
make it again, here, neither Mr Howard nor Mr McLachlan were solicitors for
the protagonists in the Hindmarsh Bridge case. They had no obligations to
give them documents. None. Not as a regal obligation, not as their legal
representatives. And, as their constituents, the protagonists had no more
right to support from them than the Aboriginal people had right to protection
from them. So, I think Mr Howard should be returning the documents, giving
us these assurances about who received the documents and, remember, we
are now having a discussion about an envelope which was in another
envelope which was in a box. There are eight kilos of documents.
J: Mr Keating, would you support Mr Tickner's letter to the Aboriginal
communities call for them to jump into the debate?
P M. Well, I was abroad when he wrote it but, the thing is, what he has said I don't
have it with me is that and he wrote it before Ian McLachlIan resigned
J: Do you support Mr Tickner's letter to the Aboriginal communities calling for
them to jump into the dilemma?
PM: Well, I was abroad when he wrote it. But the thing is what he said I don't
have it with me what he said was and he wrote it before Ian McLachlan
resigned, remember this, this was when at the height of their dishonour they
had these documents and had opened them and disseminated them, he wrote
to the Aboriginal communities telling them and saying that they should take
whatever action they think is appropriate with the Coalition. Hardly an
outrageous thing to do. But you see, our friend the wordsmith, Mr Howard, is
out there and he thinks this is something you can jump on to but you always
know with Howard, let him talk and he will dig himself into a deeper hole like
he has done again today on John Laws.
J. Mr Keating, near the end of the judgment today, the Justices conceded that
there was practical difficulty in administering the legislation of Western
Australia because of its size and, I guess, the amount of unalienated Crown
Land. Just wondering, are you prepared to sort of accept with Western
Australia there might be some special circumstances which the
Commonwealth would take into account when negotiating with Western
Australia in applying the Federal Act?
PM: I have said that we will deal cooperatively with Western Australia and I have
said that now for 18 months and we have already had preliminary talks at
ministerial level. I don't want to give you a line which makes it other than
completely clear that the Western Australian Act is held to be wholly invalid
and inoperative because it was racially discriminatory and counter to the
Racial Discrimination Act. That is the key news point. The associated news
point is at last Aboriginal people have had justice in respect of land. The
TEL: 16. tlar., 95 18: 19 NO. 018 P. 09/ 10
9
ancillary point is that we will cooperate with Western Australia but we will not
excuse Western Australia for wilful breeches of the Commonwealth law.
J: Do you think there are any grounds for Western Australia claiming some
special circumstances that make it distinct from.?
PM: No. Other than to try and make it work. But not special in terms of the way
the law applies.
J: Prime Minister, are you saying that with Ian McLachlan giving the documents
to his white constituents and not to his black constituents that that is a racist
act?
PM: No, you are saying that. What I am saying is that the notion that he felt an
obligation to . Mr Howard would argue that MP's are all the time called upon to
look after their constituent's interests. This is one of the weak and
unprincipled areas of defence that Mr Howard had out last week. I am just
making the point. How do they distinguish between their obligations to the
Aboriginal constituents and to the protagonists of the Hindmarsh bridge case.
If it is an obligation to a constituent, to which constituent? If not an obligation
to all constituents.
J: Well, they say, of course, that the protagonists in this case was the
Commonwealth not the Aboriginal....
PM: And they are Commonwealth Members of Parliament. As well you would have
thought there would have been some identification with the interests of the
Commonwealth seeing as they are desperate to become the Government of
the Commonwealth, you would have thought at least the justice of the
Commonwealth position in this. These were the documents of a court case
being returned to the Commonwealth. This argument that Howard goes on
with talking about the matter being a matter of dispute therefore, if it is a
matter of dispute you can throw anyone's documents around. The fact that it
is a legal matter and that now these documents have been published to other
people who can now mount another appeal with these documents means that
the rights of Aboriginal people have been transgressed here.
J: ( inaudible) inclined to use legal action to get the documents back?
PM: There is no reason why Mr Howard should keep the documents. What is he
doing hanging on to the documents? What Is the game plan? Are there
things there that he thinks the rest of the world should not see or we should
not know about? Why does he not return the documents?
J: Mr Keating, at what point will you make good the threat of legal action? How
long does he have to hold on to them?
PM: There was no threat of a legal action, as far as I know.
TEL f 1 Mar 1i: b 19 110uñ 01
J: Is there any legal recourse open to the Government, Mr Keating?
IPM: There may well be but I have had no advice of it. There is a simple point
hI-1*. Mi, I I'z'VO1' J * hvuId 91Ve LtiQ dci'Uont~ oc Dut thii rcater po'int i-3, of
course, what he has done today is to admit out of his own mouth that he knew
Ian McLachlan was going to mislead the Parliament and he was party to the
misleading.
J: You have been hammering Mr Howard and yet his poll rate keeps going up?
P M: Well, he has had a reasonable run for the period he has been leader but so
did Mr Downer and so did [ Dr Hewson]. Last night my Press Secretary, Tony
Melville, was at the airport and he was telling me that journalists waiting for
me to land were talking about Howard and someone said, jocularly, there was
no point asking Howard any questions, he has got no policy positions.
Everyone sort of nodded in agreement. But that is right, isn't it? Here we are
today, I am here announcing a decision by the High Court of Australia
endorsing 7 to 0, a piece of legislation, probably one of the most far-reaching
pieces of legislation acted since Federation. The week before I left to go
abroad we had a huge victory in the Coalition's capitulation on the Land Fund.
I can go around Europe talking about 6 per cent GDP growth and 2 per cent
inflation and 4 per cent productivity growth and 3 3/ 4 per cent employment
growth, no other Head of Government in the western world and the OECD
area can do the same. The Government stands for things. The Government
represents things. John Howard's policy Is to make himself so small a target
as to be not noticed but then to be lauded as some sort of new-age person. I
am only repeating now lines I have been through here before. He left
Australia as an industrial graveyard in 1983. He left it to me amongst others
to clean it up and make it into the modern, sophisticated, externally oriented
country it now is. He should have been drummed out of the regiment, out of
public life after 1982. The fact that he is the only leader they have after they
twice passed over him with Hewson and then Downer, ought to be ringing
bells in people's minds. But the media always wants a contest and are
prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I have told you a week or so
ago he would not change. I used the analogy of being in the calypso shirt
saying " It's not me, it's not really me, I am not the same one" and he is doing it
again today. And you have got to understand this about him. He never
represented anything, he was always completely indecisive and I know, as I
did as Treasurer, go back through the economy and the tax system, where his
integrity stood. This is only further confirmation of it, this shabby affair of a
week or two ago. So, the Australian people will come to acknowledge these
things but winning elections in this country is never easy. One of the good
things of Australian public life is you have always got to go out and earn it and
I think we will earn it. But there should not be free rides for him either from
anywhere, including, of course and most especially, the Sydney Morning
Herald.
Ends P 1u, 1