Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today I raise concerns about the circumstances of certain migrant communities in Australia. Last week I was speaking at a local citizenship ceremony and I said to those new Australian citizens that Australia was not a lucky country but rather a land of opportunity. Unlike places where recent migrants come from, here it does not matter what religion you are, what the colour of your skin is or what family you are part of. Here it is about the content of your character and your desire to succeed.

Descendants of today's migrant families should make great and positive contributions to Australia, particularly in terms of economic activity. What worries me is that the potential of migrants to contribute is being held back by the approach of the system—and also, in some cases, by themselves. By 'the system' I mean the so-called support mechanisms that are provided and the enduring philosophical approach that migrants should be provided with the sorts of support that allow them to remain, unfortunately, isolated in society. All here are aware of the 510 hours of English language training provided to skilled, family and humanitarian migrants by the government and funded by the taxpayer—and that is good. It must be very difficult to learn a new language and, particularly as an adult, sitting in classes all day must be challenging. Yet, in order to ensure such migrants are supported, any time they need an interpreter to access government services such as Centrelink, they are provided with one. In other words, we provide classes for English but limited reasons to learn or use it.

Indeed, there are shops and shopping centres owned by migrants, often in areas where recent arrivals live, that speak the language of the migrants in preference to English. I put forward the proposition that this is in fact allowing a parallel society to operate and this is bad for society as a whole. An example of this occurring is that a person on welfare or even working at a market garden owned by someone who speaks their language could get up each day and go to work or even to Centrelink and speak their language. Then they can go to the shops owned by a person of the same background to buy food and still use the same language, then come home again and speak their native language to their children.

The point I make is that we need to change our approach. Otherwise, by trying to be nice, supportive and culturally aware, we create a parallel society of isolation. This means that the chances of employment become very limited, the chances of negative cultural impacts like inequality of the genders become more prevalent and this all happens at a cost to the economic potential of the nation and is paid for by the taxpayers.

To combat this system we should have a new system of practical application of English language training. For those who have professions an element of English language should be along those professional parameters. For those without a profession there should be more community based interactions to encourage confidence in everyday life. I also say that we should give migrants two years to complete this English language training and, after that, if they need an interpreter then they should pay that bill themselves.

Interestingly, the president of the Vietnamese community in Western Australia said to me, 'The way to get people to speak English is to stop the free interpreter service; then they will learn.' The English language training provided currently is not mandatory but must be taken up within six months and completed within five years of arrival or getting a visa if they want it. I say that, if you are receiving a taxpayer funded welfare payment, you should have to register for English language training within three months and complete it within two years of commencing. That would mean about five hours a week. Welfare payments should depend on participation in these courses.

When others talk on such matters it is sadly the case that there is the fear of being called racist. Debate is therefore stifled. In many ways the overriding factor behind so many of these errors is that there is a wish to avoid being seen to discriminate against migrants and, as a consequence, the system or the philosophy of our interactions is driven by a desire to ensure migrants can maintain their culture. This maintenance becomes a higher priority than integration into the Australian society with all its opportunities. By providing a system that allows some groups to establish the arrangements they had in their old country, we are not helping but hindering them.

It is of course not just the system that helps to isolate some groups; it is also the groups themselves. Personal responsibility applies, and none of what I have spoken of already ensures isolation or a parallel society, but it is ensured by an unwillingness to participate in mainstream society. An example of this was provided to me by a friend who works in a multicultural centre for women in Perth. She asked a group of women who were speaking other languages why it was that after several years in Australia they did not speak English. The reply was: 'Why should we? If we ever need English, you will just provide us with an interpreter.' This is a prime example of an unwillingness to participate.

I also think that an unwillingness and therefore an inability to communicate in English allows the negatives in migrant cultures to continue because the examples of better ways are not clear to them. Australia is of course a great and successful migrant nation. Over the generations since 1788, people have come here and made a good life for themselves. I believe that in Western Australia and specifically Cowan there are great examples of migrant communities that work hard.

I also think it is safe to say that I can generalise about a couple of groups that do know how to work hard and achieve success. To name a few, I would say that the Vietnamese people in Cowan work very well. They are involved in horticulture, they are shopkeepers and they are professionals. They are a wonderful example of people who make a great contribution to Australia. I would also talk of the refugees who have come from Burma such as the Karens and the Chins. Again, they work hard and, whilst often not in the professions due to the mismanagement of the military regime in Burma, are prepared to work long hours and be successful. I also highlight the small Burundian community in Perth. They have strongly sought the opportunities that they have achieved in Australia. They value higher education and home ownership as the markers of success. My final example is the many Gujaratis in Western Australia, many of whom are very successful and own small businesses.

I contrast this hard work and antiwelfare approach with others. There are some people in this country who just see welfare as some sort of job option. Some have been here a long time, some not so long, but still there are those who see the welfare system, a support system, as something that is to be worked and manipulated, a system that is designed to help out the most needy and the most deserving but instead is used by some people with their lies and scams to take the taxpayers' cash and never give anything back to the nation in return. I, of course, deplore those that rip off the welfare system and all conduct by those whose only effort is to get taxpayers' funds that they are not entitled to or deserving of. I think most Australians agree with that.

I was recently talking to some friends of mine from an immigrant community. They talked about people who they knew of who were ripping off state housing in Perth. They told me of a couple who got divorced and ended up getting a second Homeswest house, but instead they moved back into one house together while he rented out the other one to friends. Another example is the 'family' of a man and three or four women. Apparently, in this Centrelink fraud arrangement, the man is 'married' to one of the women, another is a sister and another a cousin, and all are on welfare payments like parenting payment single. The picture that has been painted for me by people in these migrant communities is that it is a multiple-wife scenario and certainly a maximum taxpayer rip-off scenario. This is absolutely the sort of case where, in the pursuit of fraud, we must do more. Firstly, as I always do, I encourage those that suspect these crimes to report them to the Centrelink fraud tip-off line on 131524. From a policy perspective, I say that we should DNA test these 'extended' families. If they are not related, then this scenario is a multiple marriage and fraud rip-off situation. I am informed that this is, unfortunately, widespread throughout the country.

The next matter I want to speak of is the disturbing Farah 4 Kidz rip-off. This was a report on Today Tonight from Adelaide that has caused concern among many of my constituents, who have contacted me. Farah 4 Kidz is a family day care business where child swapping and made-up names are used to rip taxpayers off. That is a well-known rip-off that I have raised with the minister. When I raised it with him back in March, he told me that action was being taken. I am, therefore, pleased that, since that time, Farah 4 Kidz has been suspended as an operator and that there will be a regulation that will ensure this child-swapping rip-off is brought to an end. It is a sad indictment that the systems that are put in place to assist those in most need are being ripped off by some people. I know that the ripping off and stealing from the taxpayers is not confined to any one group, but I find it particularly disappointing that those that come from nations with no welfare system at all and seek to come here for the opportunities choose instead, in some cases, to rip off the system.

This is a great and generous country. I have never been anywhere in the world that I think is better. It is right that we have the safety net of a welfare system, but it is also the duty of every user of the system to do the right thing. It is very sad that some people see this generosity as something to be taken advantage of. I would welcome more prosecutions.

I have spoken on two themes today—about the mistakes the system makes and the criminality of others. To ensure the best future for migrants, we must end the isolation and encourage contribution. If we do not do so, they will not have the success that they rightly should.

See this speech in context