Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I thank Andrew Wilkie, as so many times in the past, for being my seconder. It is good that there are at least two of us in this place. The Snowy Mountains would not now be in Australian hands if it had not been for the presence of small-party independents. It was an issue that, ultimately, everyone changed their mind on, but if we had not been here, there would have been no change of mind. If we are talking about iconic symbols of Australia, it would be hard to go past the Snowy Mountains Scheme, yet it was decided unanimously in this place—by both sides of the House—to sell it. It is one of the 28 greatest achievements in world history, right up there with the Panama Canal and the Tennessee Valley Authority projects.

What touched off the public notoriety on this issue was an action taken by a company that owns the trademark rights to WaltzingMatilda. Whilst it is not our national anthem, it most certainly is our national song. If you use it in Australia without permission you could be sued, and this company has had the temerity to sue not one but two people in Australia. That is as has been reported in the media. John Williamson—and we refer to this as 'the John Williamson bill'—brought this issue to the attention of his fellow Australians by saying, 'I will sing it and I will not pay any royalties to anyone; I will go to jail before I am told that I can't sing our national song.' At the present moment, the laws of this land say that you are not allowed to sing our national song. It may well be that, if some company buys the words 'Ned Kelly', we will not be allowed to use the words 'Ned Kelly'—or the armour—in Australia without their permission. A boomerang could be another example.

This bill is absolutely necessary if we do not want our cultural heritage being owned by foreigners. It is bad enough that 83 per cent of our resources are foreign owned—and people in this place allowed that to happen. I might even say that people in this place, on both sides of the House, promoted it happening. They call it foreign investment; I call it selling out your country. I do not know of anything that has been developed in recent times by foreign investment. All the things that I know of which have taken place in Australia have been precipitated by Australian entrepreneurs and Australian risk taking.

Poland did not have a government for 600 years. It was ruled by foreign monarchs and Poland was served very badly by that arrangement. I think there would be few people in this House who do not know the very unpleasant history of Ireland under English rule. In the case of Cromwell, it was reputed that some three million people died—depending on who you want to listen to on this—or left the land. One-third of the population died, in part as a result of policy and in part as the result of contemptible neglect. So how did Ireland win its freedom? How did Poland win its freedom? Both of them were under foreign control or rule—whatever word you would like to use—for 600 or 700 years. In the case of Poland, a Polish pope very aggressively asserted the relationship with the Catholic Church—as a Polish phenomenon, as opposed to a Russian communist phenomenon. In the case of Ireland, there was an Irish cultural revival. It was pretty hard for England to ban Ireland from singing their national songs, but that is what the Irish did—they started singing their national songs and people came together.

The great Australian preacher—one of the truly great Australians—Tim Costello always talks about the little spot in northern Italy that has the most successful economic development recorded in recent European history. All sorts of people flew in to find out what the hell was going on there and they found out that the reason for this tremendous economic success was a choral society. People came together and actually talked and communicated, but that is not exactly what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is our cultural identity. John Grey Gorton was probably the person who resurrected that identity. For all his shortcomings, he introduced the Australian film industry and he introduced the requirement that you had to have a certain amount of Australian content on television and in various other media outlets. He put a lot of money into getting the Australian film industry going and an awful lot of emphasis on Australia asserting itself as a different entity.

If we are submerged in the culture of the United States, then we are submerged economically and in every other way—and it does not serve the interests of this country. There was a famous conversation, which has gone into the history books, between the Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, and the then President of the United States, George Bush Sr. Prime Minister Keating said, 'President, we would like you to give our Australian farmers a fair go; we do not get a fair go off you with your trade laws'. George Bush said, 'I am the President of the United States; it is my business to look after the farmers of the United States', and then moved on to another topic. Would to heaven that our Prime Ministers asserted our aggressive Australianism! But that has to start with our own cultural identity awareness, and we have still have some problems there.

I am no raving republican, but I am deeply embarrassed when I pull out an Australian coin and I find an English lady on it. She is a lovely lady—and I understand that the concept of having something beyond the political brawl which we call democracy is important—but the problem is that that lady is English. She is not Australian. One side of my own family is very English. But the idea of us being British cost us dearly in the Second World War. Firstly, it precipitated, to some degree, the Japanese going into the war. Secondly, we were left completely bereft of any ability to defend ourselves—because we thought we were British and that, being British, the British would come out here and save us. That side of my family that was terribly English—the hatred of England was palpable in any conversation with anyone from that generation who had been around during the Second World War.

We need to assert the fact that we are a different country and our interests are not served by the interests of our great brother, the United States. I personally have always said that we will go along with them, but that is not incompatible with Australia asserting its own independent interest.

I think there would have been few Australians who felt that Australia's interests were served by giving the western half of New Guinea to Indonesia. I have gone on the record many times praising our nearest neighbours and advocating the building of a bridge of friendship with them. But it never fitted and it was certainly not in the interests of this country for that action to occur—but America wanted it to occur, so that is what we did. We should never have gone to war with Indonesia, but the interests of Britain, Royal Dutch Shell and Sarawak led us to war. (Time expired)

See this speech in context