Comparing the government's 1993 campaign material with the 1984 material indicates the move rhetorically to incorporate Aboriginal interests within 'our' interests (the state, Western Australians) and likewise count alleged Mabo deficits to 'our' (including Aborigines) detriment. In the 1984 Liberal Party leaflet titled 'Land Rights: The Frightening Facts' proposed Aboriginal land legislation is simply counterposed to the interests of 'all other Australians'. The text is devoted to arguing the detrimental effects of land rights on the economic and social well-being of 'Western Australia'. There is no accounting of Aboriginal interests here, either as 'Western Australians' or a cultural minority with distinct entitlements and needs. Nine years later the 1993 Liberal government leaflet 'A Fair Solution To Mabo For All Western Australians', warns 'every householder', in a now familiar style, about the alleged disastrous effects of the impending Federal Native Title Act. However, 'Western Australians' now include, Aboriginal people, albeit in sub-clauses. The Federal legislation will mean 'discrimination between Aboriginal people and between the States'. The WA Government's alternative legislation, 'The Land (Titles and Traditional Usage) Bill 1993 is, it is claimed, 'A Fair Solution for all Western Australians including Aboriginal people' and 'Protects traditional usage of land by Aboriginal people'. Similarly for the mining industry publicity campaign, if in 1983-85 its campaign turned on the idea that Aborigines were a 'they' community, outside 'the economy', as the WA Chamber of Mines' notorious 'black hands' (building a brick wall across a giant map of the state) TV advertisement epitomised, the 1993 campaign material avoided such stark racial divisions. Essentially, the divisions to be imagined in 1993 (to pressure the Federal Government during the formulation of the Native Title Act) were between the common good of a culturally diverse (but inclusive and united) state, and the 'foreign' political interests of Canberra.

A previously culturally unmarked 'other Australians' had become explicitly inscribed as multi-cultural. For example, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies mass-produced and distributed a four-page, full-colour pamphlet titled '"MABO" Protect Your Children's Future'. The pamphlet seeks to be as culturally inclusive as possible through its front-page image of four ethnically diverse children, each of whom is holding up a letter to form the word MABO. One girl and one boy are identifiably European, another girl is Asian and the last boy is Aboriginal. The European boy's cap has a logo with the words 'Cross Colours'. All children are positioned as equal (equal heights, equally smiling/happy, equally active). This is an undisguised borrowing of the theme of the concurrently running Office of Multicultural Affairs public awareness campaign built around the slogan - 'One Nation, Many Colours'. Here too, Aboriginality is placed on par with migrant cultures. It also suggests that Aboriginal children's futures are just as precarious as those of other children as a result of the Mabo decision and the Native Title legislation. It anticipates the criticism that anti-Mabo, anti-land rights campaigns are based in racism (recalling the 'Rights for Whites' taint of the early 1980s campaigns) and counters with the message that mainstream Australia is no longer 'white', but 'multi-coloured'.

Such an anticipation was also evident in a controversial electoral advertisement placed in the Mandurah Mail (31.3.95, p. 6) by WA Liberal minister for community development, Roger Nicholls. Entitled 'All cultures deserve respect', Nicholls plead for 'his culture' to be 'recognised with the same enthusiasm as the aboriginal [sic] culture'. The minister compared his home and business with Aboriginal sacred sites, and implied that public cultural and recreational sites such as 'monuments, parks and gardens', were under threat by galloping Aboriginal cultural claims. Nicholls also implied the law was favouring Aboriginal offenders and that Native Title was an attempt at 'appeasement', rather than addressing 'the problem'. The advertisement was very quickly recognised by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal agencies as an attempt at constructing white victimhood and Aboriginal privilege ('Minister attacked over 'racist' ad', The West Australian, 4.4.95, p. 1) and who called for Nicholls's resignation and sacking ('Sack him: Aboriginal group', The West Australian, 5.4.95, p. 5; 'Pressure grows for Nicholls to go', The West Australian, 6.4.95, p. 5). Nicholls's attempts to deny the accusations of racism and prejudice in the advertisement were branded as 'patronising' by Aboriginal groups, including Theo Kearing, of the Murray Districts Aboriginal Association who said:

The inference is that we cannot read. This may have been so in the past when our parents were denied access to the schooling system of the State but we no longer fit your mould, Mr Nicholls.  ('Nicholls ad furore grows', The West Australian, 7.4.95, p. 5)

Just so there is no mistake, my intention was to say we should all respect our own culture as well as the culture of other people.