6 December 1997
E&OE..........................................................................................................................
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. It is a matter of deep regret that the Senate chose to undermine the Government’s Native Title Amendment Bill. We could not accept it. It is in the national interest that the Bill we presented be passed and that is why we rejected the amendments in the House this morning. We have tried, from the very beginning, to strike a balance.
I remind you that when I first met the Premiers in January of this year following the Wik decision the overwhelming view was that we should simply legislate to create the situation that everybody had believed to be the law and that is that native title did not exist on pastoral leaseholds. I wouldn’t agree to that and I set out on a course of discussion and negotiation with the indigenous community, with the mining industry and with farm leaders and came up with a plan that didn’t give any of those groups all of what they wanted. And to ask the Government to further compromise on what was already a fair compromise was asking us to go too far.
We’ve dealt in good faith with everybody. We are satisfied that we’ve struck the right balance. We hope the Senate changes its mind in three months time. Our aim is to get this legislation through. We don’t want a double dissolution for the sake of a double dissolution. We want to get this legislation through. But the only way that you can get it through if the Senate persists in its obstructive delaying tactics is to present it at a joint sitting after a double dissolution. And that is why we will send the legislation back in three months time. And that will be shortly after the Parliament returns.
I am satisfied and my colleagues are satisfied, and they are quite united in their resolve, that this is a fair and decent balance. And to have accepted the Senate amendments that we voted against this morning would have been to have fundamentally undermined the thrust of the original 10 Point Plan. It would have broken public promises I made to sections of the Australian community and I was not prepared to do that.
I hope the Senate, over the Christmas and New Year break, reconsiders its position. And I say to the Australian people that we want this matter resolved. It is in the national interest it be resolved. We are for putting it behind us. The Labor Party is for prolonging it for what it believes to be its short term political purposes. Instead of pursuing the national interest, Labor believes there is political gain in taking the stance that it is. We believe the national interest lies in the legislation being accepted.
JOURNALIST:
If there is a poll, Prime Minister, plainly there will be other issues, but pre-eminently this will be a race-based election.
PRIME MINISTER:
The only people who have used the expression race are members of the Labor Party and, I’m sorry to say, members of the media. Nobody in my party or the National Party has spoken of it as being a race-based election.
JOURNALIST:
With the exception of Senator Boswell.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Senator Boswell is not a member of the Cabinet. Let me make it very plain that as far as I’m concerned and as far as my colleagues are concerned it is not a racial issue. It is striking a fair balance between different sections of the community in a difficult situation. I mean, the most extreme language in this debate has come from the other side. Allegations of racism, they were made again this morning in the Parliament by the Labor Party’s Aboriginal Affairs spokesman. We are not in the business of making this a racial issue because it is not.
JOURNALIST:
De-anne Kelly said early this week that pastoralists were arming themselves. Are you saying that it’s not going to have a detrimental affect, that it’s not going to be hot-headed people...(inaudible)...and how much they think they’ve got. Isn’t that what the pendulum swinging too far...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I’m not quite sure what that question means. I’m sorry, I don’t understand it. I don’t understand the point of the question.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think De-anne Kelly is right that pastoralists are arming themselves?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven’t the faintest idea, but if anybody is breaking the law they should be reported to the police and dealt with.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Mr Beazley seems have moved rapidly into election mode, have you?
PRIME MINISTER:
He is moving into election mode? Have I moved into election mode? No, I haven’t. I mean, you know, they can’t have it both ways. They can’t condemn the idea of an election on this issue and then carry on as though he wants an election. Let’s all be calm. Let’s just see what happens in three months time but I make it plain that we will re-present the Bill because it’s got to be fixed. This issue can’t go on forever. It’s been going on for too long. The public is fed up with it. They want it put behind them. They want some certainty and some predictability and if it goes on forever, that can’t happen.
JOURNALIST:
Do you have any plan to have private discussions with Senator Harradine in the interim?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don’t. In any event, if I had plans to have a private discussion with anybody, I wouldn’t answer that question, would I now.
JOURNALIST:
...said that you have a history of insensitivity on race issues.
PRIME MINISTER:
That’s quite wrong.
JOURNALIST:
What’s your analysis of Senator Harradine’s role in this? Do you think he’s been somewhat misguided?
PRIME MINISTER:
I disagree with him. I disagree with him profoundly because he hasn’t supported a measure which gives a sense of balance and fairness, but I am not going to make a personal attack on him.
JOURNALIST:
What sort of chance do you think there is that he will cave in in the next three months, particularly on the right to negotiate?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not going to start the day after he’s voted to support unsupportable and unacceptable amendments. I am not going to start talking about him changing his attitude. I just make the general point that there is a period of three months in which all of the members of the Senate can contemplate the fact that I lead a Government that was elected on a promise to make the Native Title Act more workable. We have presented, after months of negotiation and with the support of the great bulk of the State Premiers, in fact the only Premier or Chief Minister that has offered any criticism of our position, and that’s only been in recent weeks, has been Mr Carr. All of the other Premiers and Chief Ministers of Australia have supported our position and I can tell you that Mr Carr’s attitude now is a lot different from what his attitude was at the beginning of the year and Mr Carr understood in the discussions we had at the beginning of the year the difficulty imposed by the Wik decision.
I just hope, collectively, the Senate will understand that it is in their capacity to ultimately see the wisdom of the Government’s position. But if the Senate doesn’t, then our position is that we will present the Bill again. All that will mean, as I have tried to point out repeatedly, is, all that would mean is that it becomes yet another trigger which is available if a double dissolution at some stage in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution is sought.
Now the people who talk about a race election are the Labor Party and I am sorry to say it again, sections of the media. I don’t want a race election, I don’t believe there will be a race election in my lifetime. I don’t believe the Australian people want it and I will see that it doesn’t happen because if there is an election and one of the issues in the election is the Wik legislation, then I believe other issues will overwhelm the Wik issue, overwhelm them.
JOURNALIST:
Like what issues?
PRIME MINISTER:
The state of the economy, which I believe in the first half of next year will be growing like gang busters. The Australian economy is in a very strong state. The only tempering influence on economic growth in Australia is the downturn in parts of the Asia Pacific region. But domestic activity is very strong. Yesterday I spoke to one of the major retail figures in Australia and he said, on his indications, it would be the best Christmas for five years and that all of the indications were that people were unzipping their purses and wallets and people were imbued with a new sense of confidence. They are the anecdotal reports as well as some of the more studied reports I am getting from the small business community. So economically things are going to be running very strongly particularly in the first half of next year.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on the economy, do you believe the talk of a double dissolution could jeopardise business investment and business confidence?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I don’t believe that will happen, no. I think the prolonged delay in resolving native title problems could over time have that effect.
JOURNALIST:
Does your strident position on Wik have anything to do with the need to hold a swag of seats in Queensland ......?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t have a strident position on Wik. I have a balanced, fair and understanding position on Wik.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Beazley suggested that even now the situation could be salvaged by, perhaps Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke coming together in some...
PRIME MINISTER:
Isn’t it interesting, the Labor Party has suddenly discovered Malcolm Fraser after he ceased being Prime Minister. I mean the Labor Party’s constant references to Malcolm Fraser reek of hypocrisy. They said the most vile things about the man when he was Prime Minister of Australia and now that he is not Prime Minister of Australia they say different things. There is no way that there is a role for Malcolm Fraser or Bob Hawke or indeed any former Prime Minister, they had their responsibilities when they occupied the role that I now occupy. He knows that such a suggestion is ridiculous and he does it for the most obvious of reasons. I mean I would make the same suggestion if I was in his shoes. But he doesn’t make is seriously and he doesn’t expect that I will treat it seriously, which I don’t.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the pastoralists will be better off if you pass over parts of the Bill which validate the titles to which they are granted?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think pastoralists will be better off if the entirety of the our legislation is passed. It is like a motorcar, you take one wheel off it and it won’t run properly, it won’t run at all. And we have an integrated package and once you start ripping bits out of it it has a negative impact on its totality.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, if the major opposition party in this country believes this will be a race-based election if it occurs, how are you going to stop that perception going around the world?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if the major opposition party in this country wants to do Australia in the eye by irresponsibly talking about a race election, I will remind the Australian people who is using that description and it will be on their head not on mine. The idea that the Australian people are not mature enough to decide this issue without resort to racial prejudice is an insult to the Australian people.
The description of a possible race election has been raised for two reasons. The first is, to try and bully and intimidate the Government into changing it’s position, now that has failed and it will continue to fail. And the other is to try in some way to influence the Australian people improperly in any decision they might make in a future election and I believe that will fail to. The Australian people will make a calm judgement. If this is an issue in the election, whenever it is held and as always in a democracy the views of the Australian people will prevail. But I find this attitude which suggests that somehow or other the Australian people are not mature or intelligent enough to handle difficult issues where there are strong views on each side, I find that offensive to the Australian people, it has never been part of my political value system and it never will be. I trust the Australian people, I believe in them, I respect them and I have no doubts at all about their capacity to resolve any issue if it is properly and fairly presented to them.
JOURNALIST:
Some commentators have said that going to a double dissolution election would be an extreme risk for the Government, that your hold in the House of Representatives could be significantly diminished, do you see that as a risk?
PRIME MINISTER:
At the end of the day you have to do what is in the national interest. And it is in the national interest to get this legislation through. Now that is my believe, and I am the Prime Minister, that is my belief, I will continue to prosecute that belief. And the only way I can get it through, the only way my Government can get it through if the Senate persists in it’s obstructive, delaying tactics is to present it at a joint sitting following a double dissolution.
Now what happens at the next election is for the Australian people, not me or Kim Beazley or anybody else to decide. The Australian people will resolve it. And whatever judgement the Australian people make on these matters I will accept.
Thank you and have a merry Christmas.
[Ends]