In recent days there have been suggestions that I do not believe that church figures should participate in the debate about amendments to the Native Title Act.
Such suggestions are completely wrong.
I have deep respect for the role of churches in Australian society. Personally, I have strongly identified in recent times with expressions of church opinions on such important social issues as euthanasia, domestic violence and excessive gambling.
I have always defended the right of church figures to speak out on issues they choose beyond those of a strictly religious kind.
At the National Anglican Conference in February of this year I explicitly encouraged church leaders to participate in debate on important national issues.
However, the right to speak freely on a broad range of issues carries with it the obligation to speak in an informed, objective and constructive manner.
It also involves the right of others in the community to freely criticise the views of church figures if they do not accord with the facts, or display undue bias.
Importantly, there is an obligation on those church figures who do enter the debate not to allow the impression to be created that they speak on behalf of all adherents to their particular church or denomination.
The truth is that some of the remarks of church figures in the native title debate, particularly those suggesting racial motives on the part of the government, have given deep offence to many active churchgoers throughout Australia.
The Native Title Amendment Bill represents a fair compromise, achieved by the government after months of negotiations with interested parties, including aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders.
Many claims made by church figures about the Bill have been totally wrong.
It is not racially discriminatory. It does not purport to extinguish the common law rights of indigenous Australians. Those who oppose our changes to the right to negotiate process should remember that is not a common law right. It is a procedural right created by the Keating government in its Native Title Act
If the Bill is passed, it will still be possible for aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders to make native title claims over almost 80% of the land mass of Australia.
At present, indigenous people who represent about 2% of the population, own or control around 15% of Australia's land mass. Additionally, there are currently native title claims over approximately 45% of the land mass of Australia.
Additionally, under the Keating government's Native Title Act, Australian taxpayers are providing $1.3 billion to the Indigenous Land Fund to enable indigenous people who cannot make native title claims to purchase freehold or leasehold land.
Like any other Australians, of course, individual indigenous people can purchase freehold land.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to conceive the factual basis on which church figures and indeed others have variously attacked my government's legislation as being racist, discriminatory or immoral.
My government remains strongly committed to the reconciliation process. We have clearly identified the removal of the profound disadvantage of indigenous people in the areas of health, education, housing and employment as the foremost priority in the reconciliation process.
The attempt made by many to portray native title issues as as the only element of reconciliation is both dishonest and neglectful of the true needs of indigenous people.
20 November 1997