PRIME MINISTER
STATEMENT BY THEE PRIME MINSTER. THE HON P. J. KEATING, M?.
THE COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS MEETING
At Tuesday's Council of Australian Governments Meeting in Melbourne, I will be
putting the Federal Government's view that the Mabo principles outlined last week are
a workable, responsible and decisive response to the challenges posed by the High
Court decision.
Some responses to both the High Court judgement a year ago and to the document of
principles just released reveal a degree of misunderstanding which it is in no one's
interest to perpetuate, least of all the nation's in general.
From the outset the Government decided that the development of policy should take
place through a national process of consultation, and that COAG would be an
important next step in that process.
Tuesday's meeting will be the first opportunity for Mabo to be discussed at Head of
Government level.
The Government has said that recognition by the High Court of native title provides an
unprecedented opportunity to even up the relationship between indigenous and nonindigenous
Australians, and to build a relationship of mutual respect and trust on a
foundation of justice and dignity.
The principles released by the Government are squarely in line with this view.
There is no sense in different groups staking out extreme or unworkable positions. For
instance, it serves no good purpose to argue that native title has continued everywhere
since 1788 and has nowhere been extinguished by subsequent grants of interest, when
in fact the High Court has specifically rejected this proposition.
Equally it is both shortsighted and insensitive to reject outright the notion that native
title should be preserved to the maximum extent possible, or to suggest that
extinguishment is a reasonable option with the title holder having had no say in the
matter. There is also little sense in believing that Australia can put its head in the sand on
issues such as c ompensation. Like Mabo itself', these issues will not go away simply
because they are difficult.
I do not expect the COAG meeting to end in detailed agreement but it can provide an
opportunity for a positive step forward. A good, solid discussion would itself be a
valuable contribution to the process.
For example, there could be broad agreement on the need for an efficient means of
identifying the who and where of native title and on the acceptance that native title is a
common law reality and needs to be accommodated.
I will also be urging Premiers and Chief Ministers to accept that there ought to be
room for negotiations as well as legal solutions to land management problems, and that
Australia needs to move quickly to a new land management regime.
On related issues:
* it is hardly a revolutionary idea that a mining lease should not extinguish native
title, and that the native title can continue subject to that lease; this idea involves
treating native title no differently from most freehold title.
* the date of 30 June, 1993 does not represent a cut-off beyond which States
canniot issue grants of interest in land such as exploration or mining leases. It means
only that they should do so in a non-discrimninatory fashion and the Commonwealth,
beyond that point, would not normally beVwilling to rectify failures to abide by the
Racial Discrimination Act.
CANBERRA 6 JUNE, 1993