Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge and thank the member for Kooyong for moving this motion on social cohesion. Since I was appointed the Special Envoy for Social Cohesion, apart from every problem in the country coming my way because it was interpreted as having such a broad remit, a lot of people have asked me, 'What does social cohesion mean?' Put simply, it means our ability to interact with each other as individuals and engage with each other as members of groups or members of organisations, or as parts of institutions which are made up of people, in a way that the interrelation and engagement is respectful and peaceful and, even if there are difference and disagreement, we navigate through that without reverting to hate speech, vilification, violence or even conflict, or without stoking division.

That's the essence of social cohesion, and, frankly, it is under threat. There are many challenges that are fraying our social cohesion: socioeconomic disparity, intergenerational unfairness and, of course, political populism, at both ends of the spectrum, for short-term political gain. There is a stoking of division and has been a creation of distrust in our democracy. And of course there's social media. There are great benefits in having our digital technologies that allow access to digital communications, but we know that algorithms in social media tend to move towards pulling people apart and exacerbating that division, discord and disharmony, and there are bad actors in our political and civil discourse who manipulate these platforms for that express purpose.

That's why we, as a government, and all of us here as parliamentarians in this place have a responsibility to be mindful that our language makes a difference and has an impact on our public life. So it was disappointing during even the last parliamentary sittings to see members of the opposition and members of minor political parties choose to do the opposite and instead stoke division and discord. Political leaders, rather than politicians, especially know that what they say has a real impact on people within society. Unfortunately, there are political actors—and they know who they are—that are not taking their responsibilities and their obligations seriously. Instead, for their own short-term political gain, they're contributing to that fraying of social cohesion and the distrust in our democracy, whether it's the Leader of the Opposition stoking division or the Leader of the Greens who talks about how the political establishment is letting people down or is failing people. I would ask the Leader of the Greens: hasn't he been part of the political establishment for the past 14 years as an elected member of this parliament? So, whether it's the opposition or the Greens or even the crossbench or the Labor Party, we all have a responsibility to our democracy, to not let it down, to not tear it down, to build it up.

Parliament will always involve robust debate. It will. And that's a good thing. It's something we shouldn't shy away from. But robust debate and respectful debate are not mutually exclusive. I agree with that. In footy terms, play the ball, not the man or the woman. I wish Carlton did more of that on the weekend—

The member for Kooyong knows they should have. It's crucial that as members of parliament we're doing everything we can to promote respect and social cohesion, not fan the flames of hate and division. There has to be a greater good-faith commitment to our society and to our democracy when we talk about social cohesion. Each of us, as political leaders—not politicians—or community leaders, business leaders or leaders in sports, has that obligation and responsibility to unite Australians, to bring people together, not to attack people based on their identity or their background or to, as often happens in this place by certain actors, spread misinformation and disinformation wilfully for short-term political gain. We've got to have that commitment and that obligation to the society we value so much.

We have a relatively harmonious and very cohesive multifaith and multi-ethnic pluralistic society, but it is under strain and it is under threat. We need to work together to protect it and enhance it from those challenges. Ultimately, in the end, this is really a moral question for all of us to answer: what commitment do we have to our communities and to our broader society? As parliamentarians, elected representatives here, we should have the highest level of commitment. There are normative and cultural behaviours that, as leaders, we must manifest. We must lead the way and be role models in order to achieve a more cohesive society.

See this speech in context