Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by concurring with the comments in Senator Forshaw’s speech. They flow on to some of the points I want to make in my contribution tonight. We have spent today in the Senate debating and finalising the government’s legislation regarding the citizenship test. I will not revisit all the specifics of that legislation, but I think that, whatever your views about the necessity and desirability or otherwise of the citizenship test, one of the stated purposes of some of the material surrounding that of the information booklets is for people moving to Australia and seeking to become Australian citizens to get a better understanding of Australia’s history and of our values—what it is that actually makes up Australia.

One of the frustrations I have with that goal and that process—laudable though the goal may be—is how poor we in Australia still are at informing ourselves of, and acknowledging to ourselves, key parts of our own history. It is books like those that Senator Forshaw has talked about that provide a really important component of our getting a better understanding of the real, full history of our nation—how it is that we have got to where we are today and some of the real, very powerful, very traumatic experiences. The experience that that book deals with is one of only a number of similar instances throughout the country that are pivotal parts of groups in the community. They are key parts of a lot of Australians’ individual family stories and histories. The fact that those stories are not woven into our shared understanding does not mean that they are not real and that their consequences are not real. But because they are not woven into our shared understanding we are in many ways still walking forward in the dark. To me, it is not about just an intellectual exercise of knowing more about our history; it is very much about enabling our nation to reach its full potential. Until we have a proper understanding of the different factors, good and bad, that have been knitted together to bring us to where we are now, we are not going to be able to properly move forward.

To me, one of the real problems is that, as a nation—and it is just as much, and in some cases more so, with Australian-born people and people whose ancestors have been here a few generations, such as me—we still do not have a full understanding of our history. I spoke earlier this afternoon in the Senate about a report released a week or two ago by Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation—ANTaR. The report was written by Dr Ros Kidd from Queensland, who has researched a significant part of the history, particularly in Queensland, of the extremely serious maltreatment of Indigenous people within Queensland, including the misappropriation and theft of their earnings, their lawfully entitled wages. Related to that, it included the policies of displacement, the appalling conditions people were kept in in government institutions and the knowledge of government officials and others who knew at the time what was happening—who knew, in some cases, of children starving and of reports of malnutrition—and who simply looked the other way. Those stories are part and parcel of the stories of people who are alive today, and they are part and parcel of our nation’s history. I urge people to read stories such as those outlined by Senator Forshaw or the report of Dr Kidd, which people can get through the ANTaR website at www.antar.org.au. It is part of that wider necessity of informing ourselves. I regularly have the experience of reading material such as that which Senator Forshaw has outlined and thinking: ‘People should read this. How can I not have known this? How can other people not know this?’ People should know this because it is powerful and important information that will give them a better understanding of our nation.

I make those points in building on the issue of how we spread that information. To me, one of the extra reasons we have difficulty in getting any information out is that people lack opportunities to access the information and to explore some of the issues it raises. That is important in the context of some of the issues talked about in the citizenship test debate. I note that in the citizenship test inquiry there is a submission from the ethnic community broadcasters. I note their plea for more support for that sector and for the community broadcasting sector in general so that they can do what is an incredibly valuable and very under-recognised job. The community broadcasting sector in general is often completely ignored. It does not come up in the radio ratings and the TV ratings because it is so diffuse, but nonetheless it is a medium that reaches millions of Australians. Assessments show that about four million Australians listen to community radio each week. That includes nearly three-quarters of a million people who listen exclusively to community broadcasting. A significant number of those are in Indigenous communities. A significant number of other people are those who speak a language other than English in their home. These are key ways of reaching people who would not otherwise get information that enables them to be a better part of the Australian community.

There are 480 licensed community services broadcasting over 44,000 program hours a week that reach out to Australians in all sorts of different ways. The fact is that the notional core funding per service for the community broadcasting sector has declined significantly over recent years. I draw attention to and express support for the recommendations of the recent inquiry by the House of House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts into community broadcasting and community media. Their recommendations acknowledge the benefits of extra funding.

And we are not talking about huge amounts of money here. The suggested new funding to assist the community broadcasting sector is less than $20 million a year. That would provide significant extra amounts for content as well as for important areas of training and infrastructure. One of the positives of community broadcasting—and it is an area I have had involvement in myself in the past—is the significant engagement of people in the community in producing the material. It is not just the people who listen but also the people who produce it. Significant numbers of volunteers are part and parcel of giving that vibrancy and that local or specialist flavour and that direct experience.

One of the real values of the Indigenous community broadcasting sector, for example, is not just that it reaches out to Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians but that it provides a mechanism for training and a mechanism for the voices and experiences of Indigenous peoples to be heard. It is the same for people from migrant backgrounds, non-English-speaking backgrounds or minority backgrounds. It provides an opportunity for their voices to be heard and for that to increase the understanding of people in the Australian community.

A very small extra investment of government funds can produce a significant extra boost. I do not think there is full appreciation of that, in whatever context you want to put the debate. When we are talking about a greater understanding of Australian history, values and citizenship, then the clear benefits of the community broadcasting sector, and particularly the ethnic community broadcasting sector, in improving integration, understanding, awareness and recognition of the diversity of the Australian community become evident. There are opportunities there that we are not making the most of. I contrast that $16 million or so per year benefit with the $120 million over five years being put up to cover the cost of the citizenship test. To me, that again emphasises the distorted priorities there. How much extra value would you get out of genuinely communicating real Australian history and real Australian values in all their diversity by the better investment of money rather than by the very narrow and I think quite timid and inward-looking approach that we are getting through the citizenship test?

I repeat my plea of support for the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts looking at community media. I think it is a valuable area that would benefit all Australians with just a small extra investment of government funds. I hope all parties consider that in the context of the lead-up to the coming election and the debates that we will have and the debates that will happen through community media as well. (Time expired)