House debates

Thursday, 5 March 2020

Matters of Public Importance

Multiculturalism

3:56 pm

Photo of Kevin HoganKevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I may have missed it, but in six years I have never heard racism or multiculturalism framed in as partisan a way as it has been today. It has been worded to wedge our success and the fact that since World War II both sides of politics have been working for the same outcome. I think we have succeeded in great ways, in the fact that we are such a successful multicultural society.

The way this is worded by the member for Scullin—I have a personal like for the member for Scullin, which is why this matter of public importance surprises me. What this says is a personal insult to people on this side of politics. To say that they are a member of a government that is not standing up for multicultural society is an insult, including an insult to the member for Chisholm, who's going to be up next. It's a personal insult to her to say that she is not, as a first-generation Australia, standing up for multicultural society. Again, it's very disappointing.

Even the member for Cowan—Member for Cowan, what a wonderful story you tell. What a wonderful story you tell in the context of your family. I acknowledge you, I acknowledge your family and I acknowledge your wonderful story. But I too could, in a partisan way, stand here and go through the initiatives of the Menzies government, Harold Holt's government and every Liberal or National government since World War II that have made us a successful multicultural society. I acknowledge all the points you made about Whitlam and I acknowledge the points you made about Hawke and Keating—great initiatives. It's a shame that you can't see that on this side of politics, because both sides of politics have made this happen. Multiculturalism has been a very bipartisan issue for many, many decades.

Again, I understand that we need to have robust debate on certain things and that we do disagree on things. I haven't seen it on the issue of national security because the major parties have tended to agree on that; in the defence of our nation and for the safety of our citizens, we tend to agree mostly on that. But this is another issue that I have never seen debated in this manner in this parliament in seven years. While we might disagree at the edges or say, 'We can do a bit here or do a bit there,' it has always been in a bipartisan manner. The member for Scullin's matter of public importance today is grubby and should stand as that.

Comments

No comments