TEL: 2.' Sep. 93 17 : 17 No .015 P .01/ 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 2 SEPTEMBER 1993
E& OE PROOF COPY
Well, look, I have called this press conference today, because today marks
an important stage in the Government's resolution of the Mabo issue. Today
the Government has released a detailed outline of its proposed legislation,
which will resolve the uncertainties created by the High Court decision on
Mabo while ensuring that Native title is recognised and treated with fairness
and justice.
From the beginning the Government has had two essential aims with Mabo.
One was justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to
rights granted by the highest court in this country, the High Court; and the
Integrity of our land management system as one of the essential foundations
for our economy.
There has never been any doubt in my mind that an adequate response to
the Mabo judgement had to meet both of those objectives, the objective of
justice and at the same time the integrity of our land management system.
The legislation is complex because the issues are complicated. But we have
drawn clear lines of policy and principal including un-grudging and
unambiguous recognition of Native Title in Australian common law; a fair,
rigorous and efficient means for determining who has Native Title; where and
what the key attributes of that title are in particular cases: a just and workable
regime under which dealings in land can go on, and which provides clear
processes with wh~ ich our vital land based industries can operate and full
security for people holding grants of interests in land provided by
Governments in the past, and at no cost to them, and fair compensation for
the extinguishment or impairment of Native Title.
Now, contrary to so much mis-informed opinion and mischievous propaganda,
the vast majority of Australians will, of course, feel no tangible effects from
this legislation whatsoever. What they may well feel is a sense of satisfaction
that Australia's democratic processes in harness with our better feelings, our
sense of justice and common sense has produced a mature national
response and the biggest chance the nation has ever had to correct a two
hundred year old problem, a real chance to address the wrongs and achieve
our goal of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-indigenous
TEL: 2. Sep. 93 17: 17 No. 015 P. 02,-
2
Australians. They may feel that their generation has made a mature
response and future generations will be grateful for that mature response.
Neither I, nor the Government, expect that the draft outline will be welcomed
In toto by every interested party in the debate. I can almost guarantee that
will not be so. But a balanced approach was taken, a truly balanced
approach, and a balanced response has been made. The proposed
legislation Is the result of one of the most comprehensive consultations ever
undertaken on a national Issue in this country, and one of the most intense
periods of ministerial involvement and discussion of any issue in the
Governments history.
Since the High Court handed down the decision many meetings and
consultations have been held with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people, with the mining industry, with the pastoral industry and with State and
Territory officials. And while the draft released today is not the final
Government position, it does reflect the Commonwealth view on key issues.
Today I have written to Premiers and Chief Ministers providing copies of the
document and seeking comments before the final bill is drawn up, obviously
States and Territories will have comments to make, but the important thing is,
I hope, they will see the merits of a national approach and understand the
obvious advantage to them in such a national approach, and these
advantages are outlined in the detailed statement that I have released. No
doubt other parties will also have suggestions and we will listen to them just
as carefully. But what you do have before you today is a very carefully
considered view of the Government. When comments have been received
we will finalise the Bill for introduction into Parliament in October.
Now, our information package which we have tabled with the draft legislation
contains a detailed statement by me which highlights the main elements of
our proposal. Also there is a detailed summary of the proposed legislation
and a question and answer document which I think will help people
understand some of the principal issues. I might also add that my colleague,
Frank Walker, who is here today and officials that are also here, will be
available after Question Time if you have questions of technical detail about
some of the issues in the Bill.
So, I will be pleased to take questions.
J: Prime Minister, does this mean now that you will be prepared to sit
down and begin negotiating with the Aborigines?
PM;* Let's not have a play on words. A consultation of substance Is one
where an interest group puts to the Government issues of principle
about which it believes the Government should respond. And because
the imperatives in the development of this legislation require that the
twin interests, of justice for Aboriginal people and maintaining a system
of sensible land management are key to the national economy,
whatever is put by an Aboriginal person or group, in a sense, is
T2EL.:$ ep93 17 : 17 No .015 P .03
3
negotiating a view off that background. So, this has been~ the most
realistic consultation negotiation with Aboriginal people in our history,
about a matter which has great ramifications for them, and for which
we all believe there Is a foundation for a long-r-un reconciliation
between non-Aboriginal Australians and Aboriginals.
J: are you recognising just physical attachment to the land, or also
spiritual connection to the land?
PM: Well, you will see that in the draft legislation, in ways in which that can
be established, but it is not purely, simply a physical association.
Though, that will be the case most of the time.
J: States, States who have already expressed a considerable
opposition of some of your principles, are you really saying that this
draft is merely an ambit claim? How flexible are you on this?
PM: Well, for a start there has been an enormous amount of consultation
and negotiation with States at the official's level. Which has gone on
now for months. The Bill is, as I say in the press statement, it is not a
gerry built proposal designed for a quick fix, that suits a particular
hinatevere sstp. enWt es o amreu cbhu iltdimineg ohne rteh es opmrinecthipinlegs . to Slao, s t thains di sth naott's anw haym wbeit*
negotiating document, this Is the Commonwealth's considered position.
But importantly it gives, in the legislation, a chance for the States to
come back with proposals which they may wish to put to us, where
they believe, in their terms, better meet our principles and objectives
and our Bill. So, while we lay down very clear mechanisms for the
meeting of the principles which the Commonwealth has decided, we
are also saying to the States, if you think you can do it better in some
way by changing or developing your institutions, come back and tell
us. But what we are saying here is that on all the key principles which
we have articulated in the notes, the mechanisms which we have
established around there, be they for hearing and awarding Native
Title, be they for considering economic uses for Native * Title land, be it
exploration, or mining, or pastoral, all those mechanisms we think are
sound ones for meeting the objectives Of the Commonwealth's
principles. And whIch would apply in the Commonwealth Bill for
Commonwealth lands, which would also apply in a State in a noncomplying
State. But we have got a complying State, not only have
they the option to comply with our principles, but they also have a
further option in coming back to us and saying in which ways they
believe they can better comply.
J: On that basis though, would you believe the States who issued their
own draft legislation are more or less with your position, and how far
would they have to move If they are not?
PM: Well, the Commonwealth Bill takes precedence and legal precedence,
and I think there is, well developing within the States, very much the
TEL
TEL: 2 . Sep 91 17 : 17 tn. o015 P .04/' 1Q
4
view to examine this, to examine this positively. Because this Bill Is a
balance in crafted proposition, and it does seek that balance, and a
nice balance between justice for Aboriginal people and the essential
principles of land management for the economy. There is a nice
balance there.
J Prime Minister, West Australia has refused to even accept the High
Court judgement, WA has refused at this stage still to accept the High
Court judgement. Do you envisage then, that the Commonwealth will
have to impose its...?
PMV: Western Australia will have a copy of the legislation, they can go
through it, but it is in very much of their interest to accept the principles
here, because they are ones which don't, in any way, certainly in terms
of a claim by a State in any reasonable way, constrain mining or
economic activity. Now, If the view Is they don't want to give land to
black people, well that's a view, of course, we will not accept, and In
which case the Commonwealth Bill finally drafted and when It is
operating would operate where a State fails to comply.
J: Prn'r Minister, if this is not the Commonwealths final position, how
much room is there? Is there only room for some more Input, positive
input from the States or is there room from the other interest groups as
well to have somne..?
PMV: There is room for all the interest groups to say. For Instance, we have
divided here the task of hearing and awarding Native Title and then
considering what economic uses Native Title land can be put. Where
formally we were talking about one institution, we are now talking
about two. We are talking about a stream of Federal Court to handle
the hearing and awarding of Native Title, and then we are talking about
an institution, a tribunal which will then look at the economic uses.
Now, we have got time limits on negotiation and arbitration, for
instance. Now, In the way in which those elements of the Bill are set
up, it is quite possible a State or an interest group could come back~
with a proposition which is helpful to the general design.
J: What about if the Aboriginal people came back, for instance, and said
well, we have said we won't accept, that, you know, if you don't give us
the right of veto
PM. Well, they are not getting the right of veto, and I have told them that
right from the start, because it would bring land management In this
country to a halt, it would slow economic activity down, but they
wanted a right to be asked, and they have got a right there of
consultation. They know if in the result of that consultation their view
is not being observed they can go to an arbitration. And if that tribunal
arbitrates in their favour, well in their terms, well and good. If it
arbitrates against them then they have got to accept that decision. But
in the event that a tribunal overturned a proposition for development a
TEL: 2. ep .93 17 : 17 No. 015 P. 0.1
State or Commonwealth Minister can override that decision. So, the
practical operation will be, any legislation which has an arbitration
procedure automatically turns a consultation into a negotiation.
Because everybody knows if you don't negotiate it goes to an
arbitration. So, there is an imperative there to negotiate, but in the
event that it does go to arbitration a decision can be made and parties
will be able to put their view to it. But the body that Is arbitrating is not
the body hearing the Native Title.
J: Well how vulnerable is your tribunal proposal to constitutional
challenge?
PM. well, I think, invulnerable.
J: You just explained the limitations on compensation, Prime Minister,
particularly there doesn't seem to be a specific mention of special
attachment in the outline and also how would you see the Bill being
spread between the Commonwealth and the State Governments?
PM: Well, we were formally looking at some formulation for compensation,
which in some way devolved a freehold value, and with multiples of
freehold value for special attachment. But for a number of reasons we
think that proposal is flawed and we are now saying that compensation
should only be on just terms, and naturally the just terms will
comprehend the economic value of any particular piece of and the
special attachment which may, and that is the special features of the
land, and therefore the nature of the compensation which could be
more than monetary compensation can be considered in those terms.
On the second part of the question we have not decided what portion
of the financial load the Commonwealth has carried in respect of
compensation for past grants. But only to say that it will be carried by
government.
J: Can I get my question in now what is the position of National parks,
wildlife areas, wilderness areas under this draft legislation? Will they
be able to pay more..
PM: Look, David ( Barnett) can I say I don't want to be running down a
whole lot of technical features of the Bill. So you can put all those
questions this afternoon. The thing I think 1 would like to hear is the
politics, the generic qualities of it, et cetera.
J: Prime Minister, developing among the States as to how they look at
this, the whole issue of a national approach. Can that be interpreted
as you being optimistic that the States will join in with this and if so
what States might be still holding out and also what is your response to
Mr Perron's letter about changes to the Northern Territory Land Rights
Act?
TEL: 2 . Sep .93 17 No. 0115 P. 6i
6
PMV. Let me deal with the first part of the question I think States which look
at this issue sensibly understand that a comprehensive national
approach is better than a State by State approach. I think the Bill will
get a better hearing than maybe people believe at this point from the
States. Whether we get agreement is a different matter, but I think it
will get a reasonable hearing. I think they are convinced that a
genuine attempt on our part is being made to get the balances right
here. I am not sure in the end how all States will react, it may be that
some want to overturn the High Court decision or take that view. I
think it is an unrealistic view. Sorry, your other question was?
J: Mr Perron's letter about possible changes to the Northern Territory.
PM: Well, we have had, routinely, letters from Chief Ministers in the
Northern Territory about the NT Land Rights legislation. This is not
something the Government wishes to focus on at the moment, this is
the primary focus of our consideration this is this piece of draft
legislation. This is the primary piece of Aboriginal law, potential draft
law in Australia and easily the best piece of Commonwealth law in
respect of Aboriginal land and we want to get these principles drawn
togeiher, agreements around this Bill and deal with this Bill.
J: two sets of rules, two sets of principles acting at the one time.
PM: Well, one goes to statutorily confirmed land rights and the other goes
to inherent rights under the common law.
J: What sort of directions have you taken to match the expectation raised
in your Redfern speech in relation to reconciliation and social justice
for Aboriginal people?
PM: Following this draft Bill, and then Bill, and passage, will be a package
of measures to deal1wth other social justice questions and these will
go to land acquisition and other issues. We are not as developed in
that package as we are with this because this is the primary vehicle for
giving effect to the High Court decision. But where the High Court
decision doesn't have impact on Aboriginal people, that. is where they
have been dispossessed or not able to take advantage of Mabo then
we will then go down the route of trying to see in which ways we can
sensibly advance the social justice for those categories of Aboriginal
and Islander people. I will probably give some expression to that in
the Second Reading Speech on this Bill so that the Aboriginal and
Islander community know that in the Autumn session of next year we'll
will introduce the other legislation.
J: Prime Minister, how can you avoid delays in exploration and mining
activity when under the provisions of this proposal you have outlined
today, you only need to register a claim to then be regarded as having
an interest in that area such that the Tribunal can direct a company for
T2EL.:$ ep .93 1-7: 17 No .015 F. 7'.
example to negotiate with a registered claimant rather than someone
who has actually had their native title claim tested.?
PM: So, what is your point?
J: Well, that Is going to build In delays because inevitably you will have
to end up having to hear the claim to establish a native title hold.
PM. No, no, it would build in no further delay than that which is inherently
there in dealing with a native title holder. Aboriginal people are
entitled to say, for all these years we have asserted that our traditional
customs and land should have been part of the common law of this
country. Finally, our most supreme Court has said it is. So we have
land which is obviously going to be native title land, but because we
have not yet sorted out the ownership of it, the holders of the title,
should it be reasonably open for companies or economic developers to
then go in just as though no native title ever existed. Native title exists.
it exists this very day, it Is a matter of deciding who the holder of the
title Is. Therefore, should it be treated in any less of a way than native
title land where the holder is clear.
What we have said is this: the registrar under the Bill, has a set of
measures, a set of criteria under which a claim will be registered;
vexatious claims are rejected; claims which for instance seek to claim
title to areas on which freehold title will have extinguished native title,
all those things are taken away, but where there is a reasonable
likelihood of a claim be a valid one and one that can proceed, it will be
registered. If it is registered say a mining company will then deal with
that registered group of owners and then the same time frame applies
that is, four months for negotiation, three months for an arbitration
process if in the event they don't agree, or longer if they both agree. If
it is for exploration it is three months for negotiation and two months in
the Tribunal. But under any mining legislation now It is three months,
for instance, for exploration.
In other words it is a reasonable procedure, a * nd it is a reasonable
procedure for native title where the holder Is'known as it is where a
claim has been registered.
J: it turns out not the native title holder, if someone had just made a
claim, not had it tested and can subsequently be found not to be the
native title holder; you built in all that negotiation for months in delay.
PM; Yes, but you are talking about at the most a seven month process.
Who now gets an approval process within seven months? Who now?
J: Prime Minister, why have you decided that native title claims won't be
heard in the same courts that other Australians use?
TEL
TEL: 2 $: eP .97 1: 1? No . CII 5 F. 3l
PM: That is not necessarily so. The Federal Court is a court other
Australians use, a State Supreme Court or' a Land and Environment
Court for instance are courts other Australians use, except a stream of
those facilities will be devoted to the special task of hearing claims for
native title, which will mean that anthropological information and tribal
information et cetera, custom and tradition these issues will become
the specialisation of whatever will be a variant on these particular
Courts whatever they might be. They are very much the same
institutions whlchopther Australians use, but varied, changed, adapted
for the special task of hearing and awarding native title.
J: Have you got a timetable yet for when this Bill is to be completely
finished and introduced into the Parliament? How long is it?
PM; We want it in in October and it is just a matter of whether we can get
responses in time to consider the responses, to put them into the draft.
We have concurrently been writing a draft Bill as we have been writing
drafting instructions so what you see here in the draft legislation also
exists as a very rough draft of a Bill. So, that will truncate the time
down of actually completing the draft legislation and drafting
instiuctions and then the writing of it.
J: Mr Keating, what impact do you think this proposed legislation is going
to have on the Government's fiscal policy over the next couple of
years?
PM: Not very much at all.
J: Mr Keating, you have obviously spent an immense amount of time on
this yourself, what do you say to those who say that you have been too
preoccupied with this issue at the cost of political attention to other
areas of government?
PM, I say that is not a correct judgement.
Labor governments are hear to do these things. These are things that
will never be done by Tory governments, they will never get the social
balances that are in this right. That is why governments like this exist.
And I think the work which we have put in here and it has been an
enormous work by my Cabinet and ministerial colleagues and by
officers of the various departments the intensity of the work in six
months to try and put together something which has got principles so
clearly articulated first of all decided and articulated as this has, I
think will do credit to any piece of legislation of this kind anywhere.
So, you get a choice in these things either you can do it the way it
should be done on an issue which is 200 years old for which we have
never adequately tackled, or you can fudge it. What we have decided
to do is do it right.
TEL: pP9> 3 17 No. 0 15 F. 0 9'
9
As to political attention, when Budgets go like a charm everyone thinks
they are politically tuned and tuned up and polished up and all these
things about politics and consultation are never an issue. It is only
wh~ en something goes awry that you have these problems. Again, one
has got to look at the long run. This is five months into a three year
political cycle and if this Parliament was worth nothing but to get this
right, it would be worth it.
J: Prime Minister, was the Budget going to some extent awry, part of the
cost of the pre-occupation of this issue?
P M. TheOBidgetwill end up a very good Budget for the nation. That is, that
this country alone among few will have a fiscal position which is going
to be exemplary by the middle 1 990s. There are a lot of you, former
incessant barrackers for this position just three or four weeks ago you
have all gone strangely silent. The fiscal industry that exists in this
gallery has gone Into hibernation, but it is not in hibernation in the
Budget figuring it is there.
As I said yesterday, this notion that we should basically not give an
improvement in the tax position of middle income tax payers, this sort
of inverse snobbery on the part of people who have never given a hoot
for low income earners in the past, Is humbug and hypocrisy I will
never cop. If the ACTU wants to talk to us about the low paid, fine,
because they have always been genuinely interested in it. If they want
to put a view about middle incomes I will take it. But I will never take it
from people who have never had a interest ever, who wanted to cut
Commonwealth outlays back at every opportunity and then are already
now discovering as a way of criticising the Budget this question about
the low paid. Anyway, as I indicated yesterday in the House those
huge real increases for people up to around three quarters of average
weekly earnings attest to the fact that the Government looked after
these people first.
Let me say this the Government is taking no humbug or lectures from
anybody about looking after those on low incomes. We have done
more than any Commonwealth government ever, but nor * are we going
to say that somebody on average weekly earnings, at $ 33,000 or
$ 36,000, Is a wealthy person and doesn't deserve to be considered in
the sweep of incomes which all governments have to consider. The
Liberal Party has taken the Bill we have introduced and challenged it,
or are seeking to challenge it. They want to cut away at the Budget's
capacity to pay tax cuts to middle income earners. The Liberal Party of
Australia is hoping in to middle people on middle incomes, the people
on $ 33-36,000. The hypocrisy is profound.
J: As leader of the Labor Party, what message did you take away from
the Caucus Economics Comm ittee meeting of the other night?
TEL:~~ .9 1.1 11: 5 er Ic 1
PM: The first I'd take away if I was you is don't believe all that is told to you.
Because much of what I saw printed the next day was never said. No,
it was a reasonably, I thought, good meeting and I went there because
I could not attend the Caucus the following day, I had to speak to the
ACTU and I was not going to leave the Treasurer alone in a Caucu3
meeting just to argue the point himself. So, I took the opportunity to go
to the Economic Committee meeting and there most people put a very
reasonable view. Those who had sharp comments either wanted to be
In the Ministry and missed out or had been in the Ministry and had
been dropped out and had an axe to grind. That is all right, we all
know about them, they are wounded soldiers, but we will try and bind
them up and make them happy.
ends TEL