TEL:
PRIME MINISTER86/ 93
STATEM1ENT BY THE PRIME MINISTERt TJlE HON P. J. KEATING, MP
THE EXTENT OF NATIVE TITLE
Sections of the media today have treated as a revelation the Governmcnt's view that
the Mabo High Court decision will not increase sharply the amount of land able to be
granted to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
Some commentators have wondered aloud why the Government did not say so sooner.
In fact, the Government and I personally have been making this point repeatedly
since the handing down of the High Court decision in June last year.
I find it extraordinary that some in the media having peddled exaggerated and illinformned
interpretations of the impact of Mabo for months now seek to blame the
Government for allowing such views to be put about. The truth is, the Government has
consistently urged all interested parties to be calm about the issue, and from the outset
has reassured private land holders that their property is not under threat.
The consistency of my approach is demonstrated in the following remarks:
Mabo, even in its fit/ les: expression, will only give to a minority of the
Aboriginal community land because many of them were dispos. sessed of the land and
tecrefore can't make a cla/ im. John Laws Program, 2UE, 21 June, 1993
i. t doesn't mean that large parts of Australia, particularly of the built uip
areas of Australia, the urban areas ofAustralia will be subject to a native title claim.
Wher-efreehold titlk has been issued the native title has been held to have been
extinguished; where leasehold has been Issued, the native title in most Cases or In
many caves has beeni extinguished" NSW ALP Conference, 13 June, 1993
" It is important to recognise that existing legal rights in relation to property
continue, and it is wrong to see the H-igha Courts decision terms ( if existing land
holif'rs losing their land. However, the decisionm introduices a new element into
A ustrallami landf tenure, in the form of native title, and thereby creates a needfor
clarity in t1e definition amid alplication of native title fig/ ts, especially in relation to
other interests it land." Redfern Speech, 10 December 1992
EL: 30.-jul. 93 16: 12 No. 007 P. 01/ 02
I .1 think it is Word? saying that the court's decision does not challenge the
granting offreehold or leasehold title over musch of/ A , istralia, a~ some people have
feared it might, and it does not interfere with private property rights of this kind
Parliament, 4 June, 1992
To their credit, this view has been reinforced by some in the Aboriginal community,
including Mick Dodson of the Northern Land Council, who said in January this year:
" Our advice on Mabo is that clearly there are the majority, thc overwheliming majority
of forms of land tenure in this country are unaffected by Mabo. People have nothing to
fear, The existing property rights in those lands is secure."
It has also been suggested in the press today that this realistic assessment of the
consequences for land ownership in Australia calls into question the linking of Mabo to
the issue of Aboriginal reconciliation. This is simply not the case, and reveals a
fundamental lack of understanding of the High Court decision.
The Government still holds thc view that the Mabo decision provides an opportunity to
achieve reconciliation with Aboriginal people. However, this link between Mabo and
reconciliation was never based on an assumption that the Mabo judgment would lead
to vast new tracts of land being granted to Aboriginal people.
Rather, it is based on the decision itself. By jettisoning the fallacy of terra nullius and
recognising Aboriginal dispossession, the Mabo decision has left us far better prepared
psychologically to proceed with the process of reconciliation. The foundations of
discrimination and prejudice have becn kicked away.
Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandcr people will receive no benefit from the
Mabo decision. They have been dispossessed.
There needs to be and the Government intends to deliver a package of social justice
measures for them, in keeping with thle spirit of the Mabo decision.
CANBERRA JULY, 1993