Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me start by saying: I affirm that there are dangers in prejudice. I stress the importance of social cohesion in modern Australia. I regret very much that these matters have been brought into question by the way in which this matter has been pursued. I want to stress that there were certain principles settled in 1988, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister of Australia. They were in the form of the National agenda for a multicultural Australia. I affirm very strongly all of the principles enunciated in that document. I regret that from time to time there are some who want to affirm some of the points. I was pleased today, particularly in the deputy leader's comments when she mentioned the affirmation at the time of citizenship, the elements that were described as the limits to multiculturalism: policies based upon the premise that all Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia; a commitment to its interests and its future first and foremost; that multicultural policies require all Australians to accept the structures and principles, the Constitution, the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, and equality of the sexes. And they impose obligations as well as affirming rights.

There are certain benefits that come from these policies for all of us: the maintenance of our cultural identity, social justice and economic efficiency. Lest there be any doubt, at the time of the Howard government, there was consideration of these matters again, and it occurred in a report, Australian multiculturalism for a new century: towards inclusiveness. That was a report of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council in 1999. If you read it, as I have from time to time, you will see those principles affirmed very positively again.

There are issues that from time to time need to be discussed and debated. Provided that discussion occurs in a reasonable and sensible way, one should have no problem with it. Some have tried to bring into question the views of the Prime Minister. Let me just say: if you read what he had to say yesterday, it ought to be beyond doubt, because he said:

… we are a free country, we are a free society and it is not the business of government to tell people what they should and shouldn’t wear …

We can all have an opinion, we can all have a preference but in the end it is up to the citizens of Australia to decide what they should wear.

That is ostensibly the reason that we are talking about this issue today.

If you read The Canberra Times of today, there are some other comments that I found of interest. They came from a lady who is described as the Muslim Women's Association executive officer, Maha Abdo. She said that the federal parliament should implement New South Wales' rules, which require women in a burqa to temporarily remove it for identification as they do at airports and courts. There are sometimes issues that we need to talk frankly about. If you talk frankly about them in the context that Ms Abdo has, why shouldn't they be raised?

I do not think we should have any divisive approach in these issues. The principles that I have stated have been affirmed by governments: the Hawke government, the Howard government and this government over and over again. Debating it in a way which brings into question people's commitment to those principles is unhelpful. That is the point that I make very strongly. This is not a debate that we should be having, because the principles have been affirmed again and again and again. They do not need to be brought into context for the purposes of creating division. (Time expired)

See this speech in context