Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

reaffirms its commitment to the right of all Australians to enjoy equal rights and opportunities and be treated with equal respect regardless of race, colour, culture, creed or ethnic origin;

(2)

reaffirms its commitment to maintaining an immigration policy wholly non discriminatory on grounds of race, colour, culture, creed or ethnic origin;

(3)

reaffirms its commitment to the process of reconciliation between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians, and to closing the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity;

(4)

reaffirms its commitment to multiculturalism and to maintaining Australia as a culturally diverse, tolerant and open society, united by an overriding loyalty to our nation, obedience to its laws, and commitment to its democratic beliefs and institutions; and

(5)

denounces intolerance in any form on the grounds of race, colour, culture, creed or ethnic origin as incompatible with the kind of society we are and want to be.

This motion is based on the racial tolerance motion of 1996, which was adopted in the fraught environment associated with the political surge to so-called Hansonism. In the face of Hanson’s calls to reintroduce racial discrimination in immigration policy, to abolish the policy of multiculturalism and to slash programs for Indigenous Australians, it was critical that our political leaders stood up for the principles of tolerance, fairness, equality and mutual respect. They did so in the racial tolerance motion.

This motion was proposed by the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. Members of both sides of the House were involved in its drafting. The then Prime Minister, John Howard, introduced it and the motion was supported unanimously by the parliament. The motion reaffirmed the parliament’s commitment to an immigration policy without discrimination on the grounds of race and creed, to reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to maintaining Australia as a culturally diverse and tolerant society, united by an overriding commitment to the nation and its democratic institutions and values. It denounced racial intolerance in any form.

In my judgment, this motion contributed significantly to efforts to counter those who sought to incite fear and prejudice. Since the 1996 racial tolerance motion, however, events have generated new challenges to our values of tolerance and respect for diversity. The 2001 terrorist attacks on the US and the attacks on Bali, Madrid and London evoked calls for discrimination at our borders and in our domestic policies.

That no major political party contemplated a return to a discriminatory immigration policy speaks well of how far we have come. But, in other respects, in the domestic sphere, we have regressed. In an atmosphere of heightened security concerns, many Australians of Muslim and Arab descent have been targets of suspicion and discrimination. They have been made to feel isolated, mistrustful and fearful and as not being accepted as Australian. Government made the test for Australian citizenship much tougher, reflecting profound misconceptions that the previous arrangements were too weak to protect social cohesion and national identity. Multiculturalism—what is a truly unique Australian achievement—was eroded and ultimately the word was banished from the vocabulary of official discourse. The current economic hard times, far from diminishing the importance of action to promote equal opportunity and multiculturalism, require a reaffirmation and a strengthening of the commitments made by this parliament 13 years ago so that vulnerable members of our community are not scapegoated or abandoned. As prosperity ebbs, the necessity for vigilance actually increases.

The motion I move today shares core elements with the 1996 motion—a commitment to maintain Australia as a culturally diverse and tolerant society united by shared values; a non-discriminatory immigration policy; the advancing of reconciliation between Indigenous and other Australians; and the denunciation of intolerance—and it strengthens these elements. The motion adds culture and ethnicity to the original references to race, colour, creed or origin, which reflects contemporary language about diversity in Australia as well as that of international human rights treaties.

The motion recognises that, as we strive for a united and tolerant Australia, reconciliation between Indigenous Australians and others must always be at the forefront of our political, social and economic efforts. The motion reaffirms the commitment this parliament made last year when it adopted the apology to the stolen generation: the commitment to close the appalling gaps that existed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. Slow or no progress in ameliorating this state of affairs is simply not acceptable.

This motion explicitly and deliberately uses the word ‘multiculturalism’. The omission of the term from the 1996 motion reflected the then government’s ambivalence about this concept. It was an omission that was regretted by a number. As the negative sentiments grew in strength, the institutions of multiculturalism were eroded, the term was dropped from the lexicon and respect for diversity was omitted from the list of core Australian values about which applicants were advised when they were applying for citizenship.

I ask the parliament to clearly declare that we are committed to a policy of multiculturalism, a policy that involves both rights and responsibilities, and a policy that respects cultural diversity within a framework of shared values, including a commitment to our democratic beliefs and institutions and to the rule of law. Some have asserted otherwise, but the fact is that this has always been intrinsic to Australian multiculturalism and it is important that we restate it, recognise it and affirm it.

Societies characterised by racial, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity have existed throughout history. With increasing population movements, they are very common today. But the instances where diversity has been experienced as positively as it has been in Australia over recent decades are far less common. A key factor in this has been the policy of multiculturalism. As Malcolm Fraser said in a seminal speech 30 years ago:

Multiculturalism is about diversity, not division. It is about interaction, not isolation. It is about cultural and ethnic differences set within a framework of shared, fundamental values …

Our society is not perfect—the situation of Indigenous Australians demonstrates this—but I do believe that it is arguably the most successful, united and harmonious multicultural society in the world. I once thought that this was a particular perspective. But having seen some of the countries that we are trying to emulate, I have realised that their commitment to multiculturalism was a very surface one whereas we have been working at this for almost 40 years. I believe it is timely to reaffirm the values that have been crucial to the success of our society and I commend the motion to the House.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say at the outset that, when I was approached by the member for Kooyong to second this motion, I had no hesitation in doing so. I want to pay tribute to him, not only in his career in this place but in his former career and the advice he gave the Fraser government in relation to multiculturalism. He has made this country a better place. I think his defence of multiculturalism is something that is very hard to not agree with—where we suffer from is ignorance and prejudice. That is where people have their conservative views. I also want to acknowledge the members for Pearce and McMillan, who are in the chamber to listen to this discussion and acknowledge the part that they played, together with the member for Kooyong and the former member for Cook, who is here in spirit but not physically, and acknowledge the courage that they showed in arguing from the backbench with the former government in terms of the direction on migration and other matters. They are not easy things to do. Words are cheap; actions speak much louder than words. Each of those people took on their government and had some successes in some areas and not in others. Sometimes we take things for granted. What worries me is that we are losing a lot of corporate memory. We are losing a lot of people who understood how hard it was to get to a particular position, and people now take it for granted.

In times of economic uncertainty you can be led by pied pipers down the wrong road, and it is important to restate the values of this motion, which were debated in this chamber on Wednesday, 30 October 1996. There was bipartisan support. As the member for Kooyong said, it was a unanimous resolution. It was a resolution that was discussed some seven weeks after the first speech of the then member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson. She basically set bushfires burning, not just in this country but in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world. Quite frankly, the initial response of the then government was inadequate. I do not think anyone understood how quickly it would take off, but it did take off and it damaged our reputation. We still have to repair that in a bipartisan way. We have to learn from those mistakes. We have to stand up.

This motion is part of that. As the member for Kooyong also said, the word ‘multiculturalism’ was missing from the former resolution that we debated. We have also included words in relation to closing the gap that lies between us and Indigenous Australians in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. It is a modernising of the resolution, but the values remain as true today as they were when we discussed it back then. They need to be taken up and they need to be argued, and we need to explain to people that the ignorant and prejudiced approach by some sections of our community is not going to benefit any of us. We need to lift our fellow human beings, not put them down because of race, because of colour or because of creed. Sometimes it is not easy to stand up for certain values, but these are everlasting values and that is why the member for Kooyong can be proud of his contribution to public life.

I also spoke on the previous resolution that was before the House in 1996, and one of the things I said then still rings true today:

Those who make political capital out of the fears and prejudices of certain people in our community must not be allowed to use the very real problems faced by many struggling Australians to further beat up the prejudices and the hatred.

In relation to the Racial Discrimination Act I had this to say:

The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 is special to all of us.

…            …            …

This act is our bill of rights. This act makes us all equal. As parliamentarians, we should at all times strive to maintain the principles behind this motion and every subsequent piece of legislation in this parliament should respect the Racial Discrimination Act.

I think that is an important principle and I am pleased that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is going to bring forward some legislation to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act in the Northern Territory. My views on that issue are well known within my party. I do not support acts of racial discrimination, whenever they are perpetrated. They do not justify the means. We need to do things in a non-discriminatory way. I do not want to be saved by being discriminated against. Those concepts do not stand together and, indeed, they are a simple solution to a complex problem. It requires us to think outside the box and is something that I fought in this place going back to the original Native Title Act, where we successfully managed to convince the government to do things in accordance with a special measure, not in a discriminatory way which was the then legal advice. That was upheld by the High Court and I think we are all proud of that.

These are not easy decisions, but they need to be made if we are going to stand up. I think the interesting thing with the debate—then, as well—is that equal rights do not mean equal treatment. There are many groups of people with many different needs and aspirations. Equal rights means a fair go for all—all those different groups of people—and that means different treatment to ensure that all Australians live the kinds of lives that they want. In other words, true equality does require differential treatment. If we are all at the table together, we have different strengths and weaknesses. If one of us is deficient in mathematics, it requires intense help there to bring them up to the level of someone else. So when someone does get differential treatment—like Indigenous people deserve and need because of their special disadvantage—that is a positive discrimination which we should all embrace.

If you go to the Fred Hollows Foundation website, they have the statistics under the old method. It shows that 24 per cent of Aboriginal men live to the age of 65 and 35 per cent of Aboriginal women live to the age of 65. That statistic is a disgrace. It is an indictment on our society. It is not Aboriginal people who are responsible. It is not because they are living in a particular way. In other countries—in Third World countries—the statistics are far better. But today we have some news that the Bureau of Statistics shows that Indigenous life expectancy is longer than previously thought. Apparently they have rearranged the method to better account for Indigenous deaths, and Indigenous life expectancy has now improved by some 10 years. We should celebrate that, and this motion talks about closing the gap. Both sides of politics should keep working.

It is very easy and enticing to use race and prejudice to get votes. That is not a unique thing. It has happened around the world and can be done successfully, but what legacy do you leave your nation if you go down that path? It is well known that I had a reasonable relationship with a former Prime Minister, but on two areas we disagreed: his approach to Indigenous affairs and his denial of multiculturalism. I think he was wrong. He was sincere in his beliefs, but in my view he was wrong and his legacy would have been much better if he had stood up in this parliament and given a sincere apology to the Stolen Generations on behalf of the nation.

There has not been compensation that has rained on the nation as a result of the apology by Kevin Rudd last year. Indeed, on a number of occasions that he has been overseas he has come back to report that they know about the apology and were heartened by it. In Lima of all places, when he was talking to indigenous people they knew about his apology. We are all enriched if we follow the values espoused in this motion that has been drafted by the member for Kooyong. We are not any worse off. The nation is enriched, the spirit is enriched and the parliament is enriched, and I think that is why it is worth supporting.

Debate interrupted.