Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak to the Joint Standing Committee Report on Migration and Multiculturalism in Australia, of which I was a member. Coalition members and senators acknowledge the significant contribution of all who contributed to this inquiry. The terms of reference were broad and the level of community interest considerable given the numerous submissions to the inquiry itself. The committee members worked together throughout the inquiry to achieve a collaborative report.

You would be aware that the coalition under the former Howard government introduced multicultural policies and programs that signified the coalition's strong and enduring commitment to community harmony, and a migration program that does not discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin, gender, race or religion. A decade ago the then coalition minister for immigration the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, recognised the value of multicultural policies and programs and stated in Multicultural Australia: United In Diversity policy, the following:

This non-discriminatory migration program has brought people from across the globe and with them their diverse cultural heritages. About six million migrants have settled in Australia since the Second World War. They have made an enormous contribution to Australia, along with the unique contribution of Australia’s Indigenous people, earlier migrants and their descendants. Together, we have built a country that is vibrant, successful and outward looking, a country that provided safe haven for the dispossessed, and a bright future for us all.

Australia today is a culturally and linguistically diverse society and will remain so. Like our sophisticated migration program, our multicultural policy continues our tradition of successful nation building. It will help us to ensure that we meet the challenge of drawing the best from the many histories and cultures of the Australian people, within a framework of a uniting set of Australian values.

There is no doubt that Australia as a nation has a successful migration policy. The success of our migration policy, however, is no accident; it is the result of a carefully planned, merits based, non-discriminatory and orderly immigration program that has, by and large, generally received the overwhelming support of the Australian community.

Underpinning Australia's migration program has been a settlement policy that was aimed at enabling people to adopt their new society by embracing our values, learning English, getting a job and getting involved in Australian life. In past decades the primary focus of multiculturalism was to build an appreciation of ethnic and cultural diversity and to combat the intolerance and discrimination that was denying Australians the opportunity to fully participate in the Australian way of life. It has been a success in this regard.

The Howard government's policy statement A new agenda for multicultural Australia sought to broaden its multicultural policy and adopted the term 'Australian multiculturalism', which was intended to bring a greater focus on what communities had in common as Australians. It said that the Commonwealth government's 'vision is of a vigorous, multicultural Australia, united by a shared future, an overriding commitment to our nation and its democratic institutions and values, and support for the rule of law, with English as a common language.' The policy deliberately set out to explicitly recognise the significance of Australian values—in particular, the primacy of the English language, respect for existing institutions and adherence to the rule of law.

When debating the issue of multiculturalism, coalition members and senators on the committee are of the opinion that focusing on the generality of whether one is for or against multiculturalism is self-defeating and divisive. Coalition members and senators believe it is important to acknowledge that a consensus has emerged on the existence and benefits of ethnic, racial and religious diversity in our society. Having affirmed this consensus as policymakers, the parliament must then ask itself what practical policies are needed to promote the benefits of ethnic, racial and religious diversity in our society and remove emerging barriers that seek to diminish these benefits.

In relation to the recommendations in the majority report I make the following comments. In relation to recommendations 4 to 6 I reiterate that coalition members and senators are of the view that all Australians must understand that cultural tolerance is not a licence for cultural practices that are offensive to the cultural values and laws of Australia and that our respect for diversity does not provide a licence for the establishment and maintenance of closed communities. Such practices are in direct conflict with the overwhelming experience, spirit and practice of immigration to Australia, where people have come to join us and not change us. In that regard, coalition members and senators fully endorse committee recommendation (6) that states: 'The committee does not support legal pluralism.'

In relation to settlement and participation, recommendations 18 to 24, coalition members and senators recognise that, in order to integrate and to gain employment in Australia, migrants must have a command of the English language. Coalition members and senators acknowledge the role that the AMEP has in this regard. We also note, however, the criticisms that have been made of the AMEP in relation to its effectiveness. Coalition members and senators also note AE12/0466, provided in response to a question on notice from myself during the additional Senate estimates hearing on 13 February 2012, whereby the minister admitted that in 2010-11 64 per cent of the AMEP participants did not obtain functional English. A further 14 per cent of participants were awarded statements of attainment, which are conferred for attendance only as opposed to being a measure of actual skill or acquisition.

Finally, the coalition members and senators on the committee support recommendations 3, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 32 in principle. However, as we are fiscally conservative and fiscally prudent, we are mindful that the recommendations would involve the expenditure of new funds. Coalition members and senators consider that these recommendations ought to be implemented by government only if they can be undertaken within existing budgetary parameters.

Question agreed to.