Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The dangers of prejudice and the importance of social cohesion in modern Australia.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right now, more than ever, our parliament needs to promote social cohesion and confront prejudice, ignorance, sectarianism and fear, because, right now, we have asked our skilled and brave men and women of the Defence Force to confront prejudice and ignorance and sectarianism and fear in the Middle East. So today I shall ask the parliament that we, too, measure up to do our part at home to match the efforts of our defence forces, who, as we speak, are preparing to engage an enemy of humanity committing crimes against humanity.

For ISIL and the like, the enemy is not one nation, one faith or one people. Their enemy is the presence of peace. Their enemy is the presence of justice. Their enemy is the presence of religious tolerance. Their target is freedom of worship, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom itself. We cannot negotiate with this hateful, poisonous ideology, just as we cannot ignore their crimes. So Australian forces are joining an international coalition going to the aid of the vulnerable.

Labor has always put the security of our nation above politics. At a time when we face renewed threats of terrorism in our own streets, our No. 1 priority is and always will be the safety of the people of Australia. We should listen to the experts and be guided by them as to how we best protect this country, our people and our way of life. But, in confronting the threat of fanaticism and extremism on the other side of the world and here at home, we cannot ignore the dangers of prejudice and racism. We must guard against dangerous division. We must recognise that we are stronger and better and safer when we stand together.

On Monday evening in Melbourne, a 26-year-old woman on the Upfield train line was subjected to a stream of racial abuse from another passenger. The young woman was grabbed by the hair and the neck and her head was smashed into the wall of the carriage multiple times. As the train was approaching Batman station, the attacker forced the carriage doors open and pushed the woman out onto the platform. Somehow, miraculously, the young woman walked away on Monday with only grazes and bruises. But how did she board that train on Tuesday? How did she face the world knowing that the way she looks makes her less safe? How does she cope with the fear, the terrifying anxiety and the sense that, everywhere she goes, she is a target for ignorant bullies?

Every manifestation of prejudice does damage. It dents confidence. It undermines our great, inclusive Australian social democracy. It jeopardises our safety; it threatens our security. This exclusion, this denigration, can radicalise the isolated, the vulnerable and the unwell into the hands of extremism. This is the danger that we must confront and act against. As leaders in this parliament, we owe no less to our people; we owe no less to our troops going into harm's way on our behalf. The tiny handful of our citizens who have been drawn to the radical circle of ISIL and their like were not born full of hatred and rage; they were not born for a life of death. But now they are manipulated into the arms of a radical cause that some would die for.

We must ask ourselves in this parliament whether we as a nation, as a people and as a parliament can do more to moderate the angry and engage the disaffected; to temper the prejudice that feeds radicalisation; to display the courage to jealously guard the safety, cohesion and harmony that has long been a cherished part of our society; to shepherd those shunted to the margins and to bring them to the centre. This is an obligation that we as parliamentarians owe all our citizens. It is a duty that we as parliamentarians owe Australia. It is the social contract of our unique and modern Australia—our multicultural nation, enriched, emboldened and enlightened by mass immigration.

People who come to Australia should leave their old conflicts behind. People who come to Australia should obey the one set of laws that governs us all. But, for those who have come across the seas, from every country on earth, they should not have to abandon their religious and cultural practices. Australia's greatness comes from learning that, the greater contact and respect we have with people of different faiths and cultures, the more we learn that our similarities are greater than our differences, the more that we learn that what we have been told to fear is a lie.

We know our differences are not mysterious or fundamental. They are differences in clothing, experience, custom, language and culture. I beseech those—especially those fortunate enough to be parliamentarians in the Australian parliament—who are engaged in strident and offensive language. If we surrender to intolerance, if we submit to prejudice then we betray the very Australian values and liberties that we seek to safeguard and protect. That is why I am disappointed at Senator Bernardi and Senator Smith's attempt to water down legal protections against hate speech. It could not have come at a more ill advised time for our nation. Repealing section 18C creates a foothold for divisive and hateful abuse. It sends an insidious signal that somehow the need to guard against discrimination is reduced. It tips a wing to the purveyors of prejudice. For these reasons Labor joined with hundreds of community groups of all cultures, ethnicities and faiths to fight and defeat these backward-looking, divisive changes, and we will do so again if required.

On behalf of the people of Australia let me give Senator Bernardi, Senator Smith and their supporters the message I believe the Prime Minister should have delivered them: no-one has the right to be a bigot. Bigotry and racism have no place in modern Australia. The security of our nation and our citizens is above politics, and attempting to use national security to justify intolerance—to advocate banning the burqa—is beneath contempt. Let's be clear: when Senator Bernardi describes the burqa as 'a flag of fundamentalism', that is not a security argument. Wrapping a call to ban the burqa in national security is an attempt to make ignorance sound truthful and intolerance respectable, an attempt to give the appearance of solidity to prejudice. Diminishing the real and important security debate to a conversation about an article of clothing diminishes us all, and it makes Australian women who also happen to be Muslim a target for bullying and intimidation.

Today I urged our Prime Minister to follow the example of the Foreign Minister and the member for Bowman and stand up to this ignorance. Martin Luther King once said:

There comes a time when silence is betrayal.

For weeks a noisy few have been fanning the flames of this prejudice. Our Prime Minister was silent. Yesterday Labor called upon the Prime Minister to finally show some leadership on both 18C and the ill-informed, hurtful, harmful ban-the-burqa debate. We ask the Prime Minister to lead his party room, not to follow his party room. Instead he said 'the private members bill in question is something that is highly unlikely to proceed'. Sadly, it emerged in the Senate this morning. On the journalists' questioning of the Prime Minister about banning the burqa, he could only dismiss concerns before going on to say:

I find it a fairly confronting form of attire. Frankly, I wish it was not worn.

The Prime Minister—our leader—cannot afford the luxury of discomfort about what some women of religious custom wear. Leadership requires different actions. The Prime Minister cannot preach tolerance while allowing a few of his colleagues to practise intolerance. A true leader cannot unite our nation while urging division. The Prime Minister owes our nation better than this.

A true leader has a responsibility to govern for all Australians of all faiths. Leadership requires the encouragement of the majority to respect the minorities in our democracy. A true leader has the responsibility to build unity and cohesion, not division and exclusion. A true leader leads by example, not with empty rhetoric. The leaders of our nation—not just the Prime Minister, not just me but all of us in this parliament—have a responsibility, I submit, to tackle the fearmongering of the few.

These are indeed times that try nations' souls, but we will never overcome hatred with hatred. We will never overcome intolerance by being intolerant. Australia cannot face the challenges of this moment divided. How on earth do we ask our defence forces to confront intolerance and prejudice, fear and sectarianism if we too do not do the same where we have the opportunity to do so? We are a stronger nation, we are a better nation, we are a safer nation, we are a more noble nation when we stand together, not apart.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad this matter was put forward for public debate in this chamber today. It is a matter of public importance that we debate these issues. I am disappointed that the debate has been started with a call to unity while the Leader of the Opposition spent quite a big part of his time engaging in partisan commentary on this issue. I do not intend to follow that example. I intend to follow the example of Sir Henry Parkes, who said many years ago:

What we are doing by this great Federal movement is not for us, but for them, for the untold millions that will follow us; until this land of Australia shall gather within its bosom all the fruits of the culture of the world; and until the flag of freedom shall be planted here so firmly and guarded with such a fervent patriotism, that all the powers on earth shall never assault it.

That was the father of Federation, and he is a leader to whom I think we can all look as someone who played such a significant role in the formation of our nation.

Sir Henry Parkes's vision, I am pleased to say, is a reality today. It is something that continues to be built on. It is something that, although achieved in so many respects, carries an aspirational virtue to it that drives us all on to continue to meet the worthy words of Sir Henry Parkes at that time.

Australia in my view—and, I am sure, in the view of all members of this House—is the most successful immigration country on earth. It is the great legacy of Parkes and others who followed him—Calwell and Menzies and others—and, indeed, the Father of the House, the former minister for immigration, the member for Berowra, that this vision, this dream has been realised over generations.

And it is not just in the postwar period. We have had over 200 years of successful immigration to this country. We are all immigrants or children of immigrants unless we are Indigenous Australians—all of us. More than 50 per cent of Australians today are either born overseas or the child of someone who was born overseas. More than 50 per cent of Australians today have a direct or personal experience of being born overseas or being the child of someone who was born overseas. Over seven million immigrants have come to Australia since the end of World War II. But it does not stop there, because we all—other than in the case of Indigenous Australians—have this migrant experience, and it is important that we identify the links between our various migrant experiences to build and maintain the social cohesion for which Australia is so famous around the world.

The success is based on the fact that people have come to this country to join us. They have come to this country to join us and to make a contribution. Through that contribution they continue to create the Australia of the future that others who follow us will inherit. We are a nation of joiners. I am not terribly interested in what is in people's wardrobes; I am interested in what is in people's hearts. I am interested in the values they proclaim and stand by. I am interested in the contribution they make to this country because in this country you are judged on what you get done, what your contribution is and how you participate.

Participation in this country is what defines us as Australians. It is about the values we hold. It is about the way of life we have. It is about the contribution that we make. There is one law for all. There is freedom of religion enshrined in our Constitution. These are the very things that make up the society today and that all Australians cherish so deeply. This is Australia's immigration experience.

But what has driven this cohesion? This cohesion has been driven by the economic and social participation of migrants over centuries—over generations. And we need to continue to encourage that participation because that is what separates Australia as an immigrant nation. From the different stories that we read, we are aware that in Europe, the United Kingdom and Germany there is a debate which is, frankly, not relevant to this country because we have a very different experience in this country of being an immigrant nation. And we have followed a very different immigrant path. Our results are completely different. If you look at the experiences of migrants—and particularly the experiences of the children of migrants—you will see in the research that they have an as great or greater level of workforce participation; they have an as great or greater level of education attainment; and they have an as low or lower level of unemployment. That is the experience in this country, but it is the inverse in many countries overseas.

That has been achieved because in this country we have always run an immigration program that has invited people to come here to make a contribution and to be involved, particularly economically. In this country our immigration program has been a success because it has been predominately an economic program, not a welfare program. And people overwhelmingly come here to make that contribution. That is why we have had so much success—and research studies show it.

The success shows through the participation in the economy, particularly. And it is reinforced because we have a national language. That is not to say there cannot be many other languages. There should be. I would hope in future generations that more Australians speak more and more languages, but there must be one national language, because that gives us the ability to come together—whether in a workplace, a social space, a religions space or any other space—and to have the cohesion upon which we depend.

What we find, particularly in our settlement programs—the former Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, Mr Burke, who is at the table will know this—is that where you focus on getting migrants into jobs, improving their education and improving their English language skills, they have greater success. That is what we have to focus on in addressing the issues that are the subject of this debate here today.

In Australia we have always focused on the skills side of this paradigm. That has been a key economic objective of this country over many generations. But we have also sought to have people integrate socially into this country. And 'integration' is a word we should never surrender. There have been other words that have been used in this debate in the past and they have been surrendered, but integration is about participation.

When communities participate, as the overwhelming majority of communities do, then we see the success. Multiculturalism, when it works—when it is done properly—is about bringing people together. When it is done the wrong way it becomes an excuse for people to be remain separate, enclaved and disengaged. That is a recipe for social disaster, and that is something I am sure no person in this House wants to be the future of this country.

We have had periods in our history where the divide has been on issues of ethnicity and race. Australia is such an overwhelming idea that it overwhelms those divisions of ethnicity and race. But from time to time the dividing line of religion has presented itself. I am an optimist because this is not the first time that the dividing line of religion in social cohesion has been present in this country. There was once a time when there was a religious community that was accused of being a danger to Australia, of not being loyal to Australia. They were even accused, by virtue of their religion alone, of being terrorists. It was the Catholic community of the 1800s. And now they are running the joint! Now they are running the joint on both sides. This demonstrates the great success. And this is why I feel so optimistic about the challenge we face today, where we have similar religious divides and misperceptions in the community.

I know that Australia, as an idea—as an ideology even—and as an experience, will overwhelm these divisions, through improved understanding and improved engagement. We cannot be naive to the fears. We cannot be naive to the risks in all elements of this debate, but we also must be optimistic in engaging.

Next year we are going to have a great opportunity with the centenary of Anzac. I have engaged in mateship treks with the member for Blaxland over many years. The one thing that we see every time is that the diggers died for the future of Australia, and we now live in it. We are the inheritors—the beneficiaries—of the sacrifice: each of us in equal measure, no greater, no less. Regardless of our religion, ethnicity or race we are the inheritors of their legacy and we have the responsibility of continuing to strive for a better Australia—one that strives to uphold the values that those diggers lived by. Those values can be embraced by every Australian, regardless of their race, regardless of their religion and regardless of their ethnicity.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians have been troubled recently. They have been troubled by the news they have been seeing on their TVs at night. Events at home and events around the world have led many to wonder about the type of world we are living in at the moment. In times of trouble, the most important question we can ask ourselves is: are we stronger together? And what can we do to make our nation stronger together? We have seen stories of Australians who, inexplicably to most of us, have gone overseas to fight. Just as inexplicably to me, we have seen stories of Australians graffitiing mosques, pulling the head scarves off girls, threatening school children. One man is alleged to have gone into a Muslim school and threatened children at that school with a knife. And we had Jewish kids in Sydney threatened on a bus. Sikh taxi drivers—because some people are too dumb to tell the difference—have been threatened when they have been driving their taxis. I have to say that these two problems—the problem of radicalisation and the problem of racism—are two sides of the one coin. As Australians we have to reject both of them outright. Neither of these represents the Australia that we are part of.

A few years ago I was at the Royal National Park with my mum and dad and my kids. My dad told a guy not to get too close to the ducklings, because he would disturb them. This man said to my father, 'You should go back where you came from'—after 65 years living in Australia, paying his taxes and raising his kids to be kids to be good citizens. The shock of it was not the stupid racism. The shock of it was being told that he did not belong, after 65 years in this country. We cannot afford to say to any Australian now, 'You do not belong.' Our responsibility is to show our strength by embracing diversity, embracing difference and speaking to all of our communities about what makes Australia stronger.

One of the best things about being a federal member of parliament—one of the things I enjoy the very most—is going to citizenship ceremonies, because at those citizenship ceremonies we meet people who have chosen Australia as their home. They have chosen to become part of our national family. At each of those ceremonies we say our pledge:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

There is no more elegant or eloquent expression of our Australian values: our values of democracy, of human rights, liberties and the rule of law. I have said it before: I think Australian school kids should learn this pledge, because it is such an elegant and eloquent description of what it is to be Australian.

This year, Vietnamese refugee Hieu Van Le became the new Governor of South Australia. He said that he remembers experiencing racism when he was a young fellow, but then it really melted away—until, he said, Pauline Hanson made that maiden speech in this parliament. This is my plea to members here today: remember our particular, special responsibility as leaders to say clearly in the Australian community that we value difference, we embrace diversity. What makes us different makes us stronger. There were 20 nationalities represented at the Eureka Stockade—that birth of Australian nationalism—where those people fought together and stood up for a fair go for other Australians. I think of that as one of the seminal moments in our history, but it was people from many nations coming together to say about their new home: 'these are the values we live by. This is the way we expect to treat one another. This is what it is to be part of the new Australia.;

Our leadership matters and our words matter. It is our responsibility to say, again and again—in the face of division, in the face of divisiveness—that we are stronger together.

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

Let me start by saying: I affirm that there are dangers in prejudice. I stress the importance of social cohesion in modern Australia. I regret very much that these matters have been brought into question by the way in which this matter has been pursued. I want to stress that there were certain principles settled in 1988, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister of Australia. They were in the form of the National agenda for a multicultural Australia. I affirm very strongly all of the principles enunciated in that document. I regret that from time to time there are some who want to affirm some of the points. I was pleased today, particularly in the deputy leader's comments when she mentioned the affirmation at the time of citizenship, the elements that were described as the limits to multiculturalism: policies based upon the premise that all Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia; a commitment to its interests and its future first and foremost; that multicultural policies require all Australians to accept the structures and principles, the Constitution, the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, and equality of the sexes. And they impose obligations as well as affirming rights.

There are certain benefits that come from these policies for all of us: the maintenance of our cultural identity, social justice and economic efficiency. Lest there be any doubt, at the time of the Howard government, there was consideration of these matters again, and it occurred in a report, Australian multiculturalism for a new century: towards inclusiveness. That was a report of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council in 1999. If you read it, as I have from time to time, you will see those principles affirmed very positively again.

There are issues that from time to time need to be discussed and debated. Provided that discussion occurs in a reasonable and sensible way, one should have no problem with it. Some have tried to bring into question the views of the Prime Minister. Let me just say: if you read what he had to say yesterday, it ought to be beyond doubt, because he said:

… we are a free country, we are a free society and it is not the business of government to tell people what they should and shouldn’t wear …

We can all have an opinion, we can all have a preference but in the end it is up to the citizens of Australia to decide what they should wear.

That is ostensibly the reason that we are talking about this issue today.

If you read The Canberra Times of today, there are some other comments that I found of interest. They came from a lady who is described as the Muslim Women's Association executive officer, Maha Abdo. She said that the federal parliament should implement New South Wales' rules, which require women in a burqa to temporarily remove it for identification as they do at airports and courts. There are sometimes issues that we need to talk frankly about. If you talk frankly about them in the context that Ms Abdo has, why shouldn't they be raised?

I do not think we should have any divisive approach in these issues. The principles that I have stated have been affirmed by governments: the Hawke government, the Howard government and this government over and over again. Debating it in a way which brings into question people's commitment to those principles is unhelpful. That is the point that I make very strongly. This is not a debate that we should be having, because the principles have been affirmed again and again and again. They do not need to be brought into context for the purposes of creating division. (Time expired)

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by saying that I do not think there could be a greater commitment to us making sure that we all play a leadership role in this than the tone which has been adopted in this MPI. I cannot remember the last time an opposition put forward an MPI at the end of a parliamentary sitting fortnight with the purpose of having this sort of debate. The reason we need to have it is absolutely clear: to send the message loud and clear to the Australian public that the issues we are talking about are issues that almost every one of us in this building agree with, and this is the opportunity to show that. When there have been a very small number of outbreaks within this building of people not behaving the same way, I think it is right and proper that they be called out on that.

I praise, for example, the comments that Mike Baird made in a tweet only about an hour ago. The Premier of New South Wales said:

My clear position on this is governments should not be telling anyone what they should be wearing.

The reason why I think it is so important for us to be making these sorts of speeches today is that none of us should pretend that, when we have the privilege of officially and constitutionally being representatives of the Australian people, on issues of national character like this we have the luxury of saying, 'Look, it's just my personal opinion and please take it as such.' We are representatives by definition and the community needs us as representatives to make clear that we have the view that Australians will not be told they do not belong.

I have seen how it wears people down when, time and again, leaders within my community have seen something horrific overseas and have then been told by the media, 'We know you're a leader, we know you're a good person, we know you're 100 per cent part of the community, but, by the way, we just need to check: are you opposed to the child holding the decapitated head?' I can see why that wears people down. And they have still had the courage to go out time and time again saying, 'The hatred that we have seen in those images are not in my name.' Today is an opportunity for us, as representatives of the Australian people, to say to the woman who was being abused by a thug at a rail station that that abuse is not happening on behalf of Australia and that abuse is not in our name; we need to be able to say to the Sikh taxi driver who is being called a terrorist that the abuse that he is receiving is not in our name; and we need to be able to say to the children who were abused on a bus with anti-Semitic bile that the abuse they received was not in our name—not in the name of this parliament, not in the name of our country and not what Australia represents or is. Community leaders across Australia are part of a campaign making clear: not in my name. You will see it take off over the next few days. In Europe, it was only the Islamic community that was part of that campaign, having to go out and explain, time and time again, that the things that were being ostensibly done in the name of their religion were not in their name.

People are now presenting themselves as though they are the true representatives of Australia and some of those people are presenting themselves with extraordinary prejudice. We need to make sure as a parliament that one message comes out of here: not that we hedge or that we show different levels of sympathy in different ways but that we send a message loud and clear that prejudice is not in our name. The voice of hatred will always be there, but we will make sure that the voice of hatred will never be the loudest voice. We need to make sure of this now, more than at any other time I can remember. Make no mistake, the abuse that is happening to so many people on the streets—particularly to community leaders who are receiving death threats, which are usually threads involving, 'I threaten you with beheading'—is being received from yobbos.

These sorts of threats are hurting the exact people who we need to be fostering the sense of community and keeping people together. We have an unusual leadership role right now, and none of us can pretend on this one we are simply here on our own behalf. As a parliament, as a House of Representatives, as different political parties, we need to make sure that the people who are receiving hate that we will never be able to imagine know absolutely that Australia says they are part of this country and we unequivocally stand together. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Watson for his contribution, as I do the Father of the House for his. I note that the member for Watson praised the Premier of New South Wales for the contribution he made. The contribution he made was incredibly similar to the contribution that the Prime Minister made. I would like to put on the record that contribution:

The point I've made repeatedly in recent months is that we are interested in combating crime. We wouldn't for a moment target particular communities or particular religions, because not only is it wrong but it is un-Australian. We have always extended a warm and generous welcome to people from all countries, all cultures, all faiths. That is never going to change and what impresses me the longer the current security issue lasts is the enthusiasm that just about every single Australian has for our country and for our freedoms, and that includes, whether I might like it or not, whether I might prefer it or not, the freedom to wear whatever you want under normal circumstances.

We are the most multicultural country in the world. We speak over 300 languages and 28 per cent of us were born overseas. The US can only boast 14 per cent. It is a simple fact that without social cohesion Australians simply would not be what they are today. We are a landmark in human history of how cultures and ideas from all over the world can inhabit the same country in peace. If Margaret Thatcher was right in saying Europe was founded on history and that the US was founded on philosophy, then Australia has been founded on its tolerance. As Albert Einstein said:

Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.

I believe that every Australian aspires for that. We on this side—and I know that it is the same for the other side of the parliament—know that, if we are to defeat this evil that we are now confronting, we have to do it with our Australian values which we as a nation have built up over time. We have never, ever as a country been entirely perfect, but my belief is that we have strived for perfection and we will continue to strive for perfection. We know that our values are what define us and we know that our values are what will defeat what we are confronting. I think that this debate does have merit. We should be here conducting this debate this afternoon, but we should be doing so recognising that, I believe, every member of this parliament does want to show leadership on this issue and is showing leadership on this issue through their public statements, through what I have been saying.

I do not only want to quote the Prime Minister; I also want to quote our chief law-maker, who has also said very clearly:

I have no concerns with Muslims wearing the burqa, and I don’t have a preference either because frankly it’s none of my business. … I know the example has been given of visiting Parliament House. That’s really a matter for the police to determine, not for me, not for politicians. But do I think people shouldn’t be allowed to wear the burqa? No, I do not.

We have seen the Prime Minister state very clearly and categorically what his views are on this. We have seen the Attorney-General, the chief law-maker, state that as well. So this is a debate that we should have, but I believe that every member of this House knows that Australian values are what will win this battle against this hatred, this evil, this intolerance that we are fighting. If we stick together and maintain those values, we will defeat this.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this place we are all leaders and what we say matters. That is why I welcome this opportunity to place on the record the reality of multiculturalism that I live every day in both my local community and my own family, raising a child born of her father's Lebanese heritage and her mother's Fijian heritage. We must never appeal to the worst in people. That is why, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it is disappointing that we have been hearing such divisive comments from some in this building on what people can and cannot wear, and what level of racist hate speech should be acceptable.

Our diverse and vibrant multiculturalism is a demographic reality. The community recognises and supports it. As the Scanlon Foundation's research into attitudes towards multiculturalism Mapping social cohesion national report 2013 demonstrates, 84 per cent of respondents agreed that 'Multiculturalism has been good for Australia', and more than seven out of 10 respondents agreed that 'Multiculturalism benefits the economic development of Australia'. As well as this, an Access Economics fiscal impact model commissioned by the former Department of Immigration and Citizenship examined the impact of migration on the Commonwealth budget. Is 2009-10 figures show that the net economic contribution of around $880 million in the first year of arrival will rise to about $1 billion to $2 billion after 10 years, demonstrating that as migrants settled into their new home their capacity to build our economic prosperity rose.

It is in light of this evidence for these economic and social reasons that we must continue to foster this cohesion and unity and reject any efforts that work to drive us apart. It is this positive growth, economic and social, that we should always seek to foster. That is why I am proud the Labor Party is unwavering in its commitment to multicultural Australia, and so should this parliament be too. It is at the heart of our national identity and intrinsic to our history and character.

Contrast this with the ignorant opportunism we have witnessed of late. Those advocating a ban on certain religious garments only work to strengthen the resolve of extremists and inflame tensions. Our words and actions should be uniting influences to bring our diverse communities together, never to pit them against one another. I would urge all leaders in this place to be a uniting force—to stop seeking to divide the community with inflammatory or ignorant remarks about what people can and cannot wear. To conflate security matters with issues of prejudice should be called out for what it is.

When this issue arose in Victoria in 2011, Nazeem Hussain wrote in the Herald Sun:

To pass this proposed legislation would serve only to send a message to the broader community that until the introduction of these new laws, Muslim women have had the ability to exploit a (nonexistent) loophole in the law. This would be a grossly inaccurate picture to paint of such a tiny group of Muslim women who choose to cover their faces.

To put it bluntly, the only gains to be made by some with these laws would be political. Not law and order or greater social cohesion.

And, as Andrew Probyn succinctly writes in today's The West Australian: 'Let's call it for what it is. The ban-the-burqa movement is largely a rallying cry for anti-Islam campaigners, born out of prejudice and fear.'

On top of this, some in this place are intent on pushing ahead to weaken protections against racist hate speech in the very same week that we were debating important national security legislation. Now more than ever we need this community harmony, and every one of us has a responsibility to promote inclusiveness and respect. As the social cohesion report also found there was, unfortunately, in 2010 a marked increase in reported racial discrimination. This increased reporting was maintained in the next year's survey. Disturbingly, this research also highlighted the lack of awareness of most Australians about the challenges faced by our first peoples. That is why we cannot tamper with these precious laws, and Labor will fight any move to weaken protections against racist hate speech. We urge all to join with us to stop this once and for all.

In closing: we must cherish our multicultural society in word and deed. We must celebrate our diversity and realise we are all stronger united than divided. I am reminded of the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said: 'Differences are not intended to separate, to alienate. We are different precisely in order to realise our need of one another.'

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the member for Reid.

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

Hear, hear!

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Father of the House. I would like to acknowledge that my electorate of Reid sits among many on the other side. I acknowledge the member for Watson, who is my next-door neighbour—electorally, that is. I imagine the member for Chifley may well follow me. The member for Greenway is a couple of electorates away; the member for Blaxland, who is not here, is another of my next-door neighbours. In that area of Western Sydney, we see a lot of each other and I know that the member for Watson shares my passion for this place. I will see him soon. I know Saturday is one of the two most important days in the Islamic calendar; I have not looked at my calendar yet but I have no doubt I will be spending a fair bit of time with both the member for Watson and the member for Blaxland. That is not an unusual occurrence. I also see a lot of the member for Greenway and the member for Chifley.

Like them, and like all in my electorate, which is an inclusive and tolerant place, I understand that Australia has been and always will be built on the back of migration. This is what makes us so great. Like the member for Sydney—and I have only been in this place for a little over 12 months—there are two things that are, hands down, my favourite part of the job. In case you are wondering, being in Canberra is not one of them. The first of those two things is citizenship ceremonies—and they have been mentioned—because no matter what your story or what your reasons, everyone in front of you that day has their own unique story and their own path they have trod to get there. They have their own language, culture, religion, dress and food—everything about them that makes them unique. Every time, without doubt, I challenge them to pass that on to their children, so that they may pass it on to their grandchildren, because that is what has always made this country great. It is what we should celebrate and foster. The second part of the job I love so much, whether it is in Canberra or in my electorate, is visiting schools. Two of my three children are at school in my electorate. Why do I love it so much? Because we are all just looking after this joint for them. And do you know what? Through the eyes of youth we could learn so much. Sitting five minutes from my home in my electorate—obviously not at the moment, because it is school holidays—on a normal school day are my two daughters surrounded by Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, atheists and Muslims, and not one of the children in those classes identifies anyone by race or religion. Neither do the vast majority of my electorate, the member for Watson's electorate, the member for Greenway's electorate, the member for Chifley's electorate, or the member for Blaxland's electorate—nor of any electorate in Western Sydney, which is where this is cutting.

I do not begrudge talking about this topic; we need to. People are scared—I get that. But when people are scared, leaders need to stand up. They need to lead by example, not by scaring people. There are two ways you can lead and the former, for me, is far superior to the latter.

Terrorists have two goals, and this has not been spoken about a lot. The first is that we fear attack; I get that. But the second is they hate what we stand for—freedom and democracy—and the best way they can attack us without actually attacking us is to turn us on ourselves, because we then do the work for them. We cannot, as leaders in this parliament, allow that to happen. We cannot allow any child of any religion—I will not focus on one; any religion—to be abused because of their faith, their dress or the colour of their skin. That is what we must stand shoulder-to-shoulder against and eradicate. I am only too happy to stand up, time and time again, in this House and debate this. I am not scared. I am excited that this was a topic of an MPI today, because it gives me a chance to stand up and be firm on behalf of the people of Reid, who do not talk about multiculturalism. We live it and we get it—that it has and will always make our country the great place it is.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister stood up at a press conference in Canberra on 5 August with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General to announce the government's response to the terrorist threat arising out of the conflict in Iraq and Syria. The Prime Minister said:

When it comes to counter-terrorism, everyone needs to be part of team Australia, and I have to say that the government's proposals to change 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act have become a complication in that respect. I don't want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time, and so those proposals are now off the table

The Prime Minister said that the decision to shelve Senator Brandis's attack on the Racial Discrimination Act was a leadership call that he had made. He went on to talk about what political leadership meant. He said, and this is important:

In the end, leadership is about preserving national unity on the essentials …

Well, I agree with the Prime Minister. But how disappointing it is that the Prime Minister cannot or will not show that kind of leadership. Prime Minister Abbott has failed to show leadership on the Racial Discrimination Act. He said on 5 August that the government's proposed attack on 18C was off the table, but now the Prime Minister has allowed his backbench senators, Bernardi and Smith, to once more menace Australia's multicultural communities with an attack on race-hate protections.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the racist attack on a young Muslim woman on a Melbourne train on Monday. The Muslim community has told us that they have seen an alarming spike in racist incidents. The member for Sydney and the member for Watson have recounted other recent attacks on Muslims, on Jews and on Sikhs. At this tense time, when many Australians are particularly fearful of being attacked or vilified or discriminated against because of their race, the Prime Minister allows his backbenchers to tell the community that it is okay to hurl racist insults, and that hate speech must be permitted in our society.

Asked what his position on the Bernardi-Smith bill is in question time yesterday, the best the Prime Minister could manage—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. The Minister for the Environment has the call.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. The remarks made were insulting, untrue and incorrect. They allege that the Prime Minister was allowing racism. They need to be withdrawn.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would request the minister—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said nothing of the kind, and Hansard will record that I had said nothing of the kind. I will repeat it: the—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister allows his backbenchers to tell the community that it is okay to hurl racist insults.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I request the member for Isaacs to withdraw.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what I said, and it is not what you said. I would be pleased, Deputy Speaker, if I could be allowed to continue my remarks.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would request the member for Isaacs to withdraw.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Isaacs. The member for Isaacs has the call.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister offered no condemnation of that bill. Hansard will record that the member for Flinders has misrepresented my remarks. There was no assurance from the Prime Minister that he would direct the members of the coalition parties he leads to stand down. What a failure of leadership from our Prime Minister. What weakness!

The Prime Minister has also failed to show leadership on the debate about the burqa, so irresponsibly opened up by the Liberal backbenchers, including the member for Dawson, George Christensen, and the usual suspect, Senator Bernardi. At a time when Muslim women feel, because of their dress, particularly conspicuous and vulnerable to attack and to discrimination, these two Liberals have done their best to exacerbate that fear. Appallingly, they have used the megaphones that they hold as federal politicians to single out Australian Muslim women as different, even dangerous.

Incredibly, the Prime Minister has shamefully encouraged this kind of bullying of part of the Australian community. It was reported in the press earlier this week that his own office had supported the member for Dawson in his efforts. When the issue was put to the Prime Minister, he said:

… I find it a fairly confronting form of attire. Frankly, I wish it was not worn.

The Prime Minister said, 'We can all have an opinion on the issue.' That is certainly the case, but the Prime Minister is not a private citizen. He occupies the highest public office in Australia.

I met with a number of young Muslim leaders this week from my home state of Victoria, and one of the things they impressed on me was that words matter. The words our political leaders use matter. When the Prime Minister prevaricates about whether hate speech should be legal, he sends a message about what is acceptable in our society. When he offers his personal opinion on clothing— (Time expired)

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

  I am a first-generation migrant to Australia and my journey has been quite remarkable, because I made an effort from the beginning to get actively involved in my local community. From an early age, I joined community groups, sporting clubs and volunteered with many charities. It was through participation that I interacted with members of the wider community and was accepted by my fellow Australians.

As I said in my first speech, multiculturalism and reconciliation are two-way streets. There has to be a degree of flexibility—of give and take, of resilience and goodwill. If I expect others to respect my culture, I must also learn to respect the cultures of others. In order to live in multicultural harmony, there must be a degree of goodwill and compromise on both sides. It does not matter how long one has been in Australia or from which country one has come from. What matters is what we do in Australia—our accomplishments, our achievements and our contribution to Australian society.

When I first stood for the local government elections in 1997, I was unsuccessful. Many people said it was because I came from an ethnic background. But I was undeterred and I had another go. On my second attempt, I was elected to council by a small margin. At the next election, my community elected me with over 70 per cent of the vote. I served on the City of Wanneroo c ouncil for nearly 14 years before being elected to this parliament.

In the current political climate, as leaders of our nation , it is important that we are careful not to generalise or stereotype any particular ethnic group or religion as being solely associated with terrorism.

Rather, as representatives of our community we have a duty to speak out against fundamentalism, extremism and criminality in all their forms. We must take tough measures to protect the fabric of Australian society, founded on our Westminster democracy, and Australian culture, values, traditions and principles which we hold dear—the very things which make Australia the country which we love, and the very characteristics which draw thousands of immigrants to our shores.

Australia's immigration system has traditionally welcomed people from across the globe into our multicultural community over the years. In return, our society is entitled to expect that when migrants arrive to our country that they will adopt a positive attitude and make a constructive contribution to their new homeland. Above all, society expects that they will be civic-minded, loyal and patriotic to Australia and to their fellow Australians. Experience has shown that the majority of immigrants have indeed settled and become good citizens, which is testament to our immigration system and our multicultural society.

Unfortunately, there are certain enclaves that have failed to integrate into mainstream society and which have adopted hostile, antisocial and radical attitudes towards mainstream Australian society and culture—in the worst instances resorting to violence and intimidation. Currently, there is a great deal of unrest in the community about perceived threats from particular subgroups. These groups cannot expect ordinary Australians to embrace them into our society if they are unwilling to reciprocate.

We must strongly oppose radicalism, militancy and moves to introduce foreign legal systems into Australia. Together we must unite to defeat our enemies that intend to do us harm and bring those who have contravened Australian laws to justice. We have a responsibility to protect our national borders and to be very selective to ensure the merit-based selection of immigrants who are committed to integrate into mainstream society and who will strive to become good Australian citizens.

I am proud to be part of a government that will take a hard line against radicalism, extremism and militancy, whilst at the same time upholding the rule of law and protecting traditional Australian institutions and culture. We will not allow global terrorists to scare us into a state of fear that allows prejudice to unravel the social cohesion in our mainstream communities. Neither will we allow zealots and fundamentalists to disrupt the fabric of our Australian society.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.