Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the member for Gellibrand for moving this motion on the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. There can be areas of disagreement, but the fundamentals are sound. In the way in which he expressed himself as he moved the motion, I was pleased that he differentiated himself from some debates held at other times that have not acknowledged the core values that hold us together. It is a compact in which we acknowledge our diversity—that is, we are people of different races, different cultures, different faiths—but also that we have certain overriding principles which bind us together as a nation. These principles were well set out in a document called the National agenda for multicultural Australia. It was produced at the time of the Hawke government. Its principal author, I think, was a very prominent Victorian, Sir James Gobbo. He articulated the way in which I see modern Australia—very diverse in terms of its roots but an example to the rest of the world about how you can come together. It is never perfect—nothing is perfect—but, when you look at a country that has 25 per cent of its population or thereabouts overseas born, we ought to be, if race is a problem, more challenged than anybody else, and we are not.

Our core values reflect gender equity, for instance. They reflect respect for parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and English as the national language. It is important, as we have this debate about what Australian citizenship means, that we understand the nature of our diversity. I do not think of these matters only in terms of people of particular races. I am focused on my own grandchildren. I have grandchildren who can say they are Norman, Irish, Scottish, German Jewish, Tongan, Chinese and Samoan. You may wonder how they get that mix. It is very colourful. They are extraordinarily talented. They are young but will be, I am in no doubt, great Australians. It reflects something of what we are. I think we need to be very proud of that. We need to defend it and defend it vigorously.

I would defend it by advocacy rather than by trying to prosecute people for alleged breaches. In relation to human rights issues, I am occasionally troubled about what I see as jurisprudence that develops over time which sometimes takes us further than we might otherwise want to be. Some of my colleagues have raised the issue of 18C. I would not have been arguing for its repeal given that there was one case in which it was suggested that perhaps it went a bit far. I think it could be addressed in another way, and I would like to just put on record the suggestion I would make. If these matters are going to be pursued by prosecution, or through the courts, you might properly require the Attorney-General's fiat to be able to initiate the litigation. That is a process that is adopted in other parts of our law to ensure that, if matters are going to proceed, they proceed in the public interest. I offer that as a constructive suggestion if it is thought that we ought to look at these issues again.

But let me once again affirm very strongly my view. I think there is no place for racial discrimination; there is no place for discrimination against people because of their faith; there is no place for discrimination against people on the basis of their culture. As I have said before, we remain an example to the rest of the world about how you can live together successfully. I commend those who have participated in this debate.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context