Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

notes the Federal Government’s formal response to the recommendations provided by the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council; and

(2)

calls on the House of Representatives to:

(a)

endorse ‘The People of Australia’ policy which recognises the importance of the economic and social benefits of Australia’s diversity;

(b)

recognise the success of multiculturalism in Australia and policies that reinforce the benefits our diverse communities bring;

(c)

reaffirm support for multiculturalism in Australia and condemn political strategies or tactics that incite division and seek to vilify communities; and

(d)

continue the tradition of bipartisan support for multiculturalism and multicultural policy in Australia sustained by successive Governments over the years.

The genesis of this resolution, of course, is the recent announcement by the government of a new multicultural policy for this country. I would think that there is very little that the overwhelming majority of members of this parliament could quibble about in that policy. It talks about celebrating the values and benefits of cultural diversity in Australia. It says that our country is committed to a just, inclusive and socially cohesive society and that the government welcomes the economic trade and investment that we gain from multiculturalism. The other principle is that we will act to promote understanding and acceptance while responding to expressions of intolerance and discrimination regardless of where they come from.

I would also like to put on record my appreciation of the committee that worked over a long period of time to bring this policy forward. As I have said on previous occasions, it was not a committee of academics, theorists or ideologues. It was a committee of people with practical experience that ranged from a Polish woman involved in aged care in Victoria to, at the other extreme from aged care, a young woman of Filipino extraction from Adelaide who is involved with youth affairs. There was a Tasmanian policeman who had worked for many years with African refugee children in Hobart and there was a lawyer from Sydney, from an Indian background, a long-term public servant. These are the people who have come together to formulate this policy.

In its initiatives it stresses the establishment of a Multicultural Council to be an independent champion of multiculturalism in Australia. It aims to promote a national antiracism strategy and a strengthening of access and equity for people so that services are available to everyone and you are not denied services or your rights because you lack language. It talks about funding multicultural arts and festivals and it finally talks about a multicultural youth program to make sure that new arrivals, recent settlement communities, young people, are brought into Australian society very strongly by participation in sport.

Going back to that festival proposal, I am very pleased to see that. Unfortunately, I think that the opponents of multiculturalism in some past years have had the advantage of construing multiculturalism as being for Muslims or Africans or new arrivals. Multiculturalism is for all communities, whether it is for the Welsh speakers who, back in 1948, had eisteddfods in Sydney Town Hall, or whether it includes German Oktoberfests or the Greek festivals that we see around the country. These are the kinds of things that the government should be looking at financing to make sure that the message gets out there that it is for all Australians.

Our nation has had, bar Liechtenstein and Israel, the highest proportion of its people born overseas. It has accepted seven million people since the Second World War and on two occasions nearly one million a year in the early postwar years. Our nation has been built around a labour force that is prepared to work on major national infrastructure projects. It has been built on the contribution of peoples with very real skills, a process that continues to this day.

Our alternative to multiculturalism has been seen in the past. There was the dictation test which, for instance, in the period 1902 to 1909 passed only 52 applicants, on racial grounds, out of the 1,357 people who sat for it. There was the infamous case of Egon Kisch, who came to this country to warn Australia about the growth of Nazism in Europe. Eventually they had to test him in Gaelic because he could speak virtually every other language in Europe. That was an example of the way in which that test was utilised.

We have the choice. Go to the oral history of this country. Sir Henry Bolte said that he feared throughout his political career that the Australian people would find out that he was of German extraction, because, if they had, he never would have got anywhere politically. Ours was a nation—in the words of Tim Fischer in a conversation I had with him—which in the past, in the Riverina in New South Wales, discriminated against Germans during the Second World War. We jailed Lutheran ministers, one of them a Jewish convert, because we thought he might be pro-Nazi. In the First World War there were other infamous cases when every Greek family in this country was investigated, through their neighbours, because it was feared that King Constantine I was pro-German and would change the allegiance of Greece in the First World War. These are examples where racism, denigration and marginalisation caused great anguish and drove people to extremes.

Last week the former minister for immigration, the member for Berowra, made what I thought was a plausible case for the shadow minister for immigration and for another member of the opposition. Quite frankly, he failed at any point to defend Senator Bernardi. There has been a large area of bipartisan support over a long period of time. I go to many events with the member for Berowra—we have been to hundreds of them together in Sydney and other places—and he puts up a very strong case that the Liberal Party has got a proud record with regard to the development of multiculturalism in this country.

However, it was very noticeable last week that he did not rise in defence of Senator Bernardi’s conduct. The Liberal Party has to take a strong stand about the significant number of outbursts by this gentleman—not just one but a significant number. We have heard him say that he feels very troubled that in some small sections of this country where there is a significant Islamic population McDonald’s and other companies might sell halal meat. He says that he does not want to eat meat that has been blessed in a particular way because it, supposedly, means that he is going against his religious beliefs. What a lot of twaddle! Quite frankly, these companies are acting like other commercial enterprises. They are reacting to demand in the marketplace in those areas.

In recent weeks he has also talked about sharia law being introduced into this country by a consideration of Islamic compliant finance. We can sit around and we can dream that there is no Arabic world. We can dream that a minority of people in this country have particular beliefs about interest and interest being charged. In the real world we have to deal with that reality. This country has an opportunity to get into markets and be involved in an area of finance that is expanding around the world. To say that because the government might give tax equality to this form of finance it is in some way condoning sharia law is preposterous.

Senator Bernardi also made the very speculative and unquestioning comment that the current government has financed Islamic groups that ‘try to prevent Muslims from integrating or talking to infidels’. He has not cited any organisation financed by this government or the previous government in the immigration sector that does these things. I would be the first to agree with him if we were to find that we were reinforcing Islamic obscurantism and marginalisation campaigns by extreme fundamentalists in our system. He gave no example whatsoever of any group that is currently being financed. While he is described by some people as the attack dog for the opposition, I prefer the comments of Senator Brandis, who said people who engage in this kind of thing are more reminiscent of schoolyard bullies.

In conclusion, this motion says that we should celebrate the reality that this country has experienced a major nation-building process that is renowned around the world. A survey in the last day or so says that a significant majority of Australians support multiculturalism—57 per cent are for it and 29 per cent are against it. This is not unusual. Canadian surveys also show that about 10 to 12 per cent of people are extremely antagonistic and on the verge of racism. In the same survey a shattering 65 per cent of people said that we should not reject people entering this country in the refugee intake on the basis of religion—19 per cent disagreed. Those surveys by Essential Research indicate that the centre ground of the Australian people are supportive of a diverse intake. In recent years the Scanlon Foundation, in more significant research, traced very strong support for the current level of intake of people in this country in the belief that we gain through diversity.

Sixty-one per cent of Australians believe it is more for political gain than real belief. As I said, the attempt to politicise this area can lead to the marginalisation of people, greater suffering for individuals and families being ostracised from the mainstream of this country and the labour force, and can reinforce extremism. I commend this motion to the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion moved by the member for Werriwa on multiculturalism. I note the government’s response to the People of Australia recommendation made by the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council. I note the importance of this topic to all Australians. I commend the member for his past work in this area.

Australia is a diverse nation. That is one positive aspect that makes us all Australian. The fabric of our society was born out of being an island nation. It adds to who we are and how we identify ourselves as Australians. Planned migration over many years has produced a nation that can boast much about where we are today more than ever. Some 200 languages are spoken. One in four of us were born overseas and at least half of us have one parent who was born overseas. But it is not just on the facts and figures that we judge the success of our multicultural efforts. The success of our efforts was put very simply by Hakki Suleyman, Chairman of the Migration Resource Centre North West of Victoria, when he said:

True settlement for migrants can only occur when they are full participants in civic affairs.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and the efforts of the whole of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council and in particular the work of its chair, Andrew Demetriou.

The People of Australia statement and the recommendations received by the government back in April 2010 are very important as we speak to this motion. As I travelled around various migrant resource centres, I was struck by the anticipation they shared while waiting for the release of the government’s response. They shared with me their disappointment that it was taking so long for this government to respond. So, along with the many migrant resource centres and ethnic communities, I too finally welcome the release of the government’s response.

The member for Werriwa calls on this House to recognise the success of a multicultural Australia and to reinforce the beliefs our diverse communities bring. The success of where we are today dates back to governments and the challenges past governments faced. In 1977, under a coalition government, the Australian Population and Immigration Council articulated the first official definition of ‘multiculturalism’ that was based on the principles of social cohesion, equality of opportunity and cultural identity. Mr Fraser said at the time:

Australia is at a critical stage in developing a cohesive multicultural nation.

We are a few years on from there and the push factors and where people originate from are also different—and one may even argue there are greater pull factors—but in common with those sentiments now is the fact that people still want to settle in Australia. I think we find ourselves at a critical stage in continuing to develop a very cohesive society. The forces may be different politically and the cultural landscape is different, but the sentiment remains the same. Australia has one of the best resettlement programs in the world. I share that view with the view expressed in the comments made by the member earlier.

When the Howard government adopted the term ‘Australian multiculturalism’ it was reflective of Australia’s unique diverse heritage, democracy and cultural identity. It was a coalition government under John Howard that endorsed the principles of civic duty, cultural respect and productive diversity in the newly evolving value of Australian democracy and citizenship. It was a coalition government that created the Council for Multicultural Australia, supported by the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. It was also a coalition government that introduced the Charter for Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society in 1998. We also shifted to a focus on harmony and inclusion through the establishment of the Living in Harmony grants and Harmony Day, which will occur this year on 21 March.

You see, we on this side of the House have a long and consistent history of inclusion and the advancement of a multicultural Australia. The last multicultural policy statement was released by a coalition government and Mr Howard said, ‘This new statement reflects the government commitment to promoting diversity.’ There were four principles of that plan: responsibilities of all, respect for each person, fairness for each person, and benefits for all. These four principles still resound around Australia today. As I traverse this great country of ours in my role as shadow parliamentary secretary I have heard people of differing ethnic and religious backgrounds affirm that these principles hold true. People reiterate them, they understand them and above all they strive to achieve them.

Many of the issues that have been articulated in recent public debates on multicultural Australia evoke a much broader debate—a debate about concepts, tensions and challenges and about the reality of what it means to live and exist in a multicultural Australia. Our support for a multicultural Australia has been evident for many years as we led the way in this area. We have demonstrated our bipartisan support and we seek to assure those on the other side that we will continue to do so.

I broadly support the motions put forward by the government in the People of Australia multicultural policy. The great work down by the advisory council is very evident in this document and I note on page 6 of the document, under the heading of ‘rights and responsibilities’, that Australia’s successful multicultural society and our democracy are built around shared rights and responsibilities that are fundamental to living in Australia.

In the citizenship pledge taken by new Australians they pledge loyalty to Australia and its people. I agree that according to government policy Australia will continue to have an ever-evolving and ever-diversifying population. While our nation is evolving and diversifying, its people should continue to strive to become good citizens irrespective of ethnicity, religious or cultural origins. My view is that the sacred right that Australian citizenship delivers transcends ethnicity.

I accept the key initiatives of the expanded Australian Multicultural Council to act as an independent champion for our multicultural nation. However, I caution that we must not dismiss our responsibility and the role that we play in this House to act as leaders in this area for our nation. We must, in all areas, seek to uphold and support the council.

I congratulate the National Anti-Racism Partnership and Strategy outlined in the policy document. I have no tolerance for racism. As someone who experienced racism as a young child I know there is no place in Australia for that. A member earlier spoke about German immigrants being hounded during the war period. My grandfather was sent to a prisoner-of-war camp in South Australia when the war broke out. He spent some three years in that camp, although he had been accepted as a migrant. So there is that history in Australia, although the political leaders at the time thought they were doing the right thing. But my grandfather was able to continue on and to form a very valuable partnership. He established himself in this country and became a great migrant.

So there are examples in the past where we have not got the policy right in this particular area but, as I said, I have no tolerance for racism. I think everything must be done to seek to address the barriers and hurdles to settlement and social inclusion for citizens of our country. Citizenship and inclusion and the direction of government resources must correct inequalities and provide a fair go for the individual. I question this government’s commitment in this area after their recent cut of $6.8 million dollars from the multicultural program.

Whether we have come to hold our sacred Australian citizenship by birth or by choice we have been united by a common goal: to live as individuals within a peaceful democratic, culturally pluralist society free from the ugly, extreme elements of racism. On this side of the House we have set the national agenda in this place by displaying leadership in tolerance and inclusion. And we have done that in spades over the years.

I now call on individuals outside of this place to echo the People of Australia policy and reflect its attitudes. Collective and individual responsibility is the crux of what is required here. No policy document and no amount of rhetoric can replace the actions and words of individuals in our society. I want positive stories to be told of settlement and citizenship in Australia; I want these stories to be told in homes around our nation. These ought to be positive stories of the hopes, dreams and aspirations of individual citizens who are advancing Australia in a multicultural, inclusive society.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to join the member for Brisbane in congratulating the member for Werriwa for bringing this motion to the House this evening. As the former Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, I know that the member for Werriwa has worked hard in that portfolio and played a very important role in providing the basis for the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council’s statement on cultural diversity and the recommendations to government.

The member for Werriwa’s strong commitment and understanding of this issue is reflected in this motion and I welcome the opportunity to speak on it. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the federal government’s formal response to the statements and recommendations provided by the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council to the government. The People of Australia’s 10 recommendations have all been supported or supported in-principle and I commend AMAC’s efforts and contribution to the government’s policy development on multiculturalism.

When we speak of the social and economic benefits of multiculturalism today, we speak about the enrichment of the community in the development of Australia’s language capacity, enrichment in the areas of business and commercial work, and enrichment of Australia’s productive capacity. Our patterns of migration and our multicultural policy have been embraced by a diverse and harmonious society that has formed the instrumental building blocks for the development of our social and economic capacity as a nation.

Who can ignore the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme, where, in the post World War II era, 100,000 workers—two-thirds of whom came from thirty countries around the world—built one of the most complex water and electricity projects in the world. Towns were built around the project, and today this project is still the largest renewable energy generator in mainland Australia. It stands in its monumental capacity to generate a vast proportion of 67 per cent of our national electricity market. This is innovation; one of the largest and most complex hydro-electric schemes in the world, and it was built by Australia’s migrants. It is an icon of migration’s contribution to our economy. If the reactionary, small-minded approach of some were taken into account at that time, where would Australia’s productive capacity be from the lack of this project alone? This defining project stands tall as a symbol of Australia’s identity as an independent, multicultural, resourceful and innovative country.

Who can fail to mention the contribution of migrants to our manufacturing and industrial base? When we speak of independent entrepreneurship, who can go past Brunswick Street, Fitzroy Street, Sydney Road, Acland Street and Lygon Street—streets in my home town of Melbourne—areas renowned for their vibrancy and cosmopolitan nature, with a vast array of independent small businesses. For every John Ilhan, Ahmed Fahour and Frank Lowy, there are many thousands of migrants, unknown to us, who are a part of Australia’s success stories. Their small businesses have built and sustained the bedrock of our local and national economy.

As we move into more modern times we can benefit from the contribution of migrants to meet Australia’s skills deficit. As history has shown, migrants have driven innovation, and as such are building and continue to build our economy. They are not just doing the grunt work. As working Australians building the foundation of our national economy, they are also driving innovation to build and expand our social and economic outlook. In all our aspects of the Australian economy, our migration policy and the migrants who have made it successful have led the way. Ours is a society that is culturally diverse, linguistically diverse and ultimately Australian, and we must acknowledge and be proud of this.

It would be remiss of me not to point out the fact that often when we talk about multiculturalism, people think solely in terms of migrants who have come to this country. But if multiculturalism means anything it must also be about our Indigenous peoples. Finding a place for their cultural diversity, their linguistic diversity, and finding a place that recognises their rightfulness as this nation’s first people is paramount to our national dialogue. They are our asset, one of our greatest, and as our first people, as this nation’s Indigenous people, they are very much a part of our collective identity. Acknowledging their place in our society is very much an important part of what I understand multiculturalism to be. We want them to succeed in the same way migrants have succeeded in this country, a success which they all too often have been denied. We have succeeded in doing that symbolically here in this parliament; it is time now to close the gap.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the motion moved by the member for Werriwa and to take this opportunity to inform the parliament and the Australian community of the remarkable record of the coalition in relation to services and support for Australia’s migrant community. The coalition has always supported a non-discriminatory migration and refugee policy. From our start as a coalition in 1949 under the leadership of Sir Robert Menzies we took the first step towards a non-discriminatory immigration policy when the immigration minister at the time, Harold Holt, allowed 800 non-European refugees to remain in Australia and Japanese war brides to enter Australia.

Since 1945 approximately 6.5 million migrants, including over 700,000 refugees and humanitarian applicants, have migrated to Australia. The diversity and size of Australia’s migrant population has made a significant contribution to shaping modern Australia, and the coalition has consistently supported diversity.

Our population of approximately 22.27 million people, identifies with around 250 diverse ethnicities, and around 200 other languages are spoken. In the 2006 census, 45 percent of the resident population were people born overseas or people who had a parent born overseas—my husband and my two children included. Over the 17 years of a Robert Menzies led coalition government, we continued to break down the walls of discrimination. In 1957 the coalition changed the residency requirement, and in 1958 introduced a revised migration act, which, amongst other things, abolished the controversial dictation test and removed forever any references to race. In 1966 the coalition recognised that migrants offered much more than an economic benefit to the nation, and we were the first to expand non-European migration, ease restrictions on temporary residents and establish a new visa category that no longer looked at race, religion or creed but looked at the applicant’s qualifications and suitability to settle, with skills that would benefit Australia. In 1973, Labor was elected and, while there was much talk, migration was reduced during their term. It was not until a coalition government was re-elected that migration numbers and sustained funding for services were increased.

The coalition took the lead on migration policy and continues to review and renew its approach to emerging needs and future trends. Under coalition prime ministers we introduced: the Humanitarian Settlement Services; the Settlement Grants Program; the Adult Migrant English Program; the Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program; financial support for the National Translators Accreditation Authority; migrant resource centres, a much-needed service across multicultural communities; a national action plan to build on social cohesion, harmony and security; and representative organisations to promote community harmony and the benefits of diversity. We established the first Minister for Multicultural Affairs and supported the establishment of representative groups. Our policies endorse the principles of civic duty, cultural respect, social equity and productive diversity as the foundation for nation building in the unique Australian historical, democratic, and cultural narrative.

The services we introduced and the principles that underpin them have contributed to community harmony and social cohesion. It has been coalition’s policies that have empowered our migrant and refugee communities, and served the nation’s best interest. And we will challenge the government if there are cuts to effective policies or programs that go against the best interest of all Australians. The coalition has consistently and judiciously developed policies that support our many and diverse migrant communities and which reinforce the benefits diversity brings.

Earlier speakers have talked about racism. My own children have experienced that. As a nation, as a community, as peoples across this nation we say ‘no’ to racism. Tonight is an opportunity for all of us to agree that together we can build a unified, cohesive nation. We should be talking about what unites us, a common set of principles, the value and contribution of each individual and the richness of diversity in all its vibrant culture that makes up the fabric of this nation. We should be, we would be and we will be a stronger, better and more cohesive nation for doing that.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Werriwa before the House, and I congratulate him for bringing the motion before the House. I endorse all that he has had to say in relation to the motion and I commend each of the speakers to date. This is an area where many on both sides agree. There is the odd one who does not agree. His name will not be mentioned by me. I will not dignify the name, but there is a certain person who should not be on the frontbench of the opposition because of comments he made recently. I am talking about someone in another place.

The truth is it allows us to talk about this, it allows us to discuss it and it allows us to defend what is a very defensible position in the electorate. Part of the problem has been that we just think that our electorates automatically have our views and we do not go out and argue the case. I want to say that Minister Chris Bowen and Senator Kate Lundy, in responding to the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council, had this to say:

Multiculturalism requires an ongoing commitment based on a shared vision for the future prosperity of our nation.

I also want to endorse the statement on cultural diversity by the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council on 30 April 2010, part of which said:

Australia has been strengthened and enriched by migration and our diversity is one of our greatest assets and a source of strength.

Our national unity is based on mutual respect …

We all rave on about how well the 2000 Olympics went. The truth is there would have been no Sydney Olympics, there would have been no 2000 Olympics in Australia but for our multiculturalism, our diversity, the respect that we had for one another and our ability to showcase to the rest of the world what a tolerant and understanding nation we were. There were many people in migrant communities who were lobbying their own communities back home about their own experiences and how well they were treated in this country, and African nations were also quite successfully lobbied.

My electorate of Banks was radically altered at the last election, but it is worth quoting some statistics. I have four councils in my electorate. Hurstville council is the largest. I also have Kogarah council, the next largest, Canterbury council and Bankstown council. In relation to those local government areas and the proportion of people born overseas who live in them: 46.9 per cent of Canterbury was born overseas, 37.5 per cent of Kogarah was born overseas, 37.3 per cent of Hurstville was born overseas and 35.8 percent of Bankstown was born overseas. In relation to language other than English speakers: Bankstown, 50.5 per cent; Canterbury, 62.6 per cent; and Hurstville, 42.8 per cent. These are enmeshed in the communities in which I was raised.

So what has it done? It has given me a perspective because all of my life they have been the people I have mixed with. Indeed, my parents and grandparents came to Australia in the mid-1920s. My father went home, married and brought my mother out and had 10 children. Of the 10 children, six are university trained—one doctorate, three Masters, six normal degrees—and four are TAFE trained; one topped the state in carpentry; one topped the TAFE in carpentry: four teachers. The most useless of the 10 is me, a member of parliament. Each of them is contributing and putting back into the local community, and all are well-respected. That is one story of many hundreds of thousands of stories replicated across our nation. We should not apologise for the fact that migration has enriched this nation and we should take on those who are basically pushing prejudice through ignorance. It is the ignorance that feeds the prejudice. So we have a story to tell in relation to multiculturalism, and we should not apologise for it.

I am very pleased at the tone of the debate because the truth is that the Liberal Party does have a good history in this area. Indeed, you can take an oath of allegiance to Australia now and not have to renounce your former citizenship. The Liberal Party brought that legislation in when they were in government. The Labor Party supported it. It is an acknowledgement that you can retain your citizenship of birth and still be a good Australian. That is the way forward.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the previous speaker, the member for Banks, for his passionate speech. I know he is a passionate man with regard to this area, and it is good to see him in here quoting statistics about his electorate.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and this issue before the House this evening on multiculturalism. I will probably speak about my electorate a bit too; most of my speech is focused on that. The 2006 census statistics show that 57 per cent of people in my electorate of Swan were born in Australia. Obviously the remaining 43 per cent were born overseas. This is an interesting statistic in itself but the picture becomes more interesting the further you drill down into the detail. About 8.1 per cent of the Swan electorate were born in the United Kingdom but no other ethnic group contributes more than 2.5 per cent to the total. What this means is that there is an incredible diversity of ethnic groups in my electorate, all living relatively peacefully alongside each other. It is an absolute privilege to be able to stand here today and represent all these people in the federal parliament.

When I attend citizenship ceremonies in my electorate of Swan it is clear that that people want to be in Australia and respect Australian values and laws. They actually swear an oath to do so. Some people wear their traditional dress as they take the oath of allegiance, while others are surrounded by their relatives and new Australian friends. I must admit that the African women are probably the most gregarious people at these ceremonies. The dress they wear is fantastic; it is very bright and colourful and you cannot miss them. I see many pieces of clothing that represent our national flag, and it encourages me to see people who are becoming citizens and having pride in their new country. None of these people will forget where they came from and all are loyal and grateful to Australia for allowing them to become citizens. I am sure all members of this parliament would tell similar stories of the citizenship ceremonies in their electorates.

My own foster parents, who migrated to Australia from South Africa back in 1959, were happy to embrace the Australian way of life, which was less conservative than the way of life they left in South Africa. I know from speaking to dad years later that he was impressed by the fact you could go to a pub at lunchtime and have a beer or a wine without it being frowned upon. In South Africa you were considered to be a drunk if you went to have a drink at lunchtime. I can hear the member for Herbert laughing over there. He obviously knows a bit about that! I grew up in a society that was welcoming citizens from Europe in droves, and those migrants who arrived during the sixties and seventies all faced the enormous challenges that current-day migrants face. There were cultural differences and there were language barriers, but they mucked in and worked hard and became an integral part of our communities.

In addition to citizenship ceremonies, I attend gatherings and functions of different ethnic groups in and outside my electorate. I have always felt welcome and have been treated with great respect. Our ethnic group leaders are to be commended for their efforts to integrate and educate the people they represent, and I feel proud to be able to represent the diversity of ethnic groups in the Swan electorate. However, whilst it is often said that Australia is a happy and peaceful multicultural society, debate seems to rage over whether we as a society should endorse multiculturalism as a goal or instead pursue integration. I get the sense from some of the other members in this place that there may be some racial problems in the eastern states. It is usually localised incidents that create and drive these debates, and it is important always to keep these matters in proportion.

I can understand some of the concern that arises when our TV shows report the teachings of radical preachers preaching intolerance. This concern and anxiety is highlighted by the media and it would be good to see some of the many positive stories about migration in our nation shown by the media. Where there is true racial intolerance, we must be quick to condemn, but we must also be quick to realise that these people account for such a small proportion of Australia’s immigrants. I also understand that Australia is a tolerant society, but in return we expect tolerance for the way we live our lives in Australia. But if is a case of applying common sense, unfortunately governments do not have the power to enforce that; it must come from the community.

But what we do have power over is our immigration policy. I would certainly always advocate a strict policy, balanced with the economic needs of our nation, so that the imbalances are not allowed to develop. And we should maintain our humanitarian involvement as well. I think most Australians would agree with that. Where there are problems, governments should act to address them. Intolerance should not be tolerated.

In conclusion, we live in an Australia which has welcomed different nationalities from all over the world. When I am out in the electorate speaking with different people from diverse backgrounds and nationalities, they sincerely tell me that all they really want is to have a happy and peaceful life. I am proud to be a Liberal member of a parliament that has brought many good things to immigration policy in Australia.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.