6.1 37 S7 ? 390
JU 1. C, 3: E7PH 61 5 78 7390 P. 2
PRIME MINISTER
STA'rF. MENT BY THE PIM NI MNisTrEl TJF 140N P J KEATINCI N11,
COUNCIL OF Aus-rRAVIAN GOVERNMENTS &, EETrIN( NIABO0
Today the Commonwealth offered a -package of mneasures to deal wvilh the High
Court's Mal) xi decision and its ramifications. The package included offers to validate
cxisting l eases and pay c-ompensation.
Thci-e was not unanimous agreemili to this package by the States and I'errirories.
[ lhe Slates and'len-itories wanted the Commonwealth to make an executive decision
to validate leases back to 1975 and to meet compensation without themselves taking
any cxccutive decisions to provide an adequate policy response to Mabo.
Responsibility for the failure of this meeting to agree on a national response rests
largely with Premiers Kennett and Court because of their refusal to accept that the
High Court has act ually made a decision which requires a process and mechanism to
give cffcct to that decision.
Further, they wvere not prepared to agree to a scheme to adequately recognise and
protect native title, an obvious requiremecnt of the High Court decision.
Premiers Kennett and Court must now explain to their communities, and particularly
to industry, why they w~ ere not prepared to avail themselves of the Commonwealth's
offer to validate existing leases and carry all the compensation back to 1975.
They must also explain to the Aboriginal community why they were not prepared to
embrace mechanisms which wvould have heard and decided native title claims and
given pitotcewio it) title,., giunIed.
The Council of Australiani Governiments is an executive body. It was established to
make executiv: e decisions. The Commonwealth had circulated a most comprehensive
response to the Mabo judgement and P'remiers attending the meeting % vere in a
position to mnake executive decisions about this matter. Some Premiers clearly failed
to accept this rcsponsibility.
In so doing they have done no service to the nation, and a deep disservice to their
States.
61 * 5 5h7i 7 J
JIJH. 9 ' 33 3: 5j9Ft 6: 3 17
2
Our sense of selfesteem, our nbul'tY to show that wce dio indeed1 bvilkve in lhilirss and
ittstice fir all and havt: the collctiv* e will delivei it defines tfic kind of people wu
are lo ourselves and the world.
The Commonweal3th will now have to reounsider its position.
I took the view into the meeting that Mabo was a national issue requiring a national
rcsponse. It is it major opportunity, as well as challenge, for the nation as a whole
and for allI its Sovernments.
The core p~ ropositiont's which I advocated were based on the 33 suggestcd principles
endorsed by the Commonwealth Cabinet, and sent to the Premiers last week. In
particular, I emnphasised.-
( ftie need for recogiiiti'it and appropriate protection ot native title as now an
irrefutable fact iii Australian lawv, and the total pointlessness of thinking
otherwise-, 1~ lowing directly fromn this, thc need for land management regimes in the
Future to be updated to recognise and take proper account of native title;
non discriminatory treatment of native title, as the benchmark required by the
Racial Discrimination Act,
the desitability of preserving native title to the maximum extent practicable;
the imprt~ rance of establishing effective mec hanisins, in the ronil ctrihunals,
so that native title claims can be registered and sensibly resolved;
the need to act together to remove doubt about the validity of certain grants
issued since: 1975, and
the importance of responding positively to the wider implication,% o f the Maho
decision in ternms of justice, economic development and reconciliation.
The approach which I put forward was therefore a comprehensive and realistic onc.
In particular, the required action to remove doubt about existing grants must go hand
in hand with a commitment to move to ways of dealing with land which do justice to
1he Mabo decision rather than close our eyes to it.
I also put on the table a very strong offer which would absolutely secure the existing
grants which may be in doubt. I said that the Commonwealth would be prtepared to
pick up the entire comrpensation bill involved in validating grants from 1975 to the
end of June 1993, and that we would legislate to clear the way for States to validate
their grants.
But obviously that offer must be part of a wider national package.
Ju1 . q3 5: PIH 6 1 .3 5 27, 7 P. 4
3
Against this background, it is disappointing that there were still undercurrents hrorn
States of only grudging recognition of the High Court's historic decision, a tendency
to view Mabo just as a prohlcmn requiring only a minimalist solution, and Parochial
views fairly evidcnt.
Because the issue is of nationial significance, and pressing, AuIstralia needs to move
ahead on Mabo. We shall now proceed to draft Commonwealth legislation which
can set a framework for dealinig with native title. We shall also continue to work on
thc wider Mabo issues.
In this next stage, we will continue to consult -with the States and Territories, as vAell
of course as representatives of Aborigial and Torres Strait Islanders and
representatives of industry. Obviously, we shall take into aCCOUnt what has been said
ut COAG.
We wvant, in all of this, to work with the States and TFerri tories. But we do need to
move fbrward as a nation, and they need to get on board.
The Commonwealth. in its further work, willI continue to be guided by justice tbr
Aboriginal and lorres Strait Islander people, the need for w~ orkable land
managcement, and protection of' thc national economic interest.
MELBOUJRNE
9 June 1993