|
Dear Mr Djerrkura
I have your letter of 7 May regarding the implications of the Wik decision.
Whilst I understand and respect the strength of the Working Group's feelings on this subject, I am both puzzled and disappointed at your response and your statement that you see little point in continuing further discussions.
In paragraph 2 you state the Working Group's appreciation of the pressure I had been under to extinguish native title on pastoral leases and that you had appreciated my efforts to resist that pressure.
The 10 point plan does not permit general extinguishment of native title on pastoral leases. There has been absolutely no change in the government's position on that point over recent weeks.
Despite the voluminous publicity given to alleged concessions, alterations and changes relating to pastoral leases, it remains the case that no element of the government's plan involves general extinguishment.
It is suggested that the apparent ability of the National Party to continue to advocate extinguishment has caused the Working Group to change its views. This is particularly puzzling. A clear Cabinet position has been established and as I have indicated on numerous occasions in recent days, I am firmly resolved to press ahead with that position.
From the very beginning of our discussions I have, with complete good faith, told indigenous leaders that major changes following the Wik decision would be necessary. Even before the Wik decision, the government had persistently made it clear that other amendments to the Native Title Act were needed to ensure its workability.
The 10 point plan represents, the government's view, a fair balance between respect for native title and the legitimate need to provide certainty for pastoralists, farmers and miners.
I remain willing to continue further discussions concerning the 10 point plan. In particular, I would be keen for detailed discussions with the Working Group when legislation giving effect to the plan is available.
Yours sincerely,
John Howard
|