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

My feelings are very mixed, standing to speak on this motion today. It is a motion which was first moved in the parliament 20 years ago. It was moved at the time that One Nation first entered the House of Representatives; moved by the then Prime Minister, John Howard and supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley.

On the first day of the new parliament, Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, put to the Prime Minister that it was time to carry this motion again. The intention was that carrying the motion would be an affirmation of principles that would be unanimously held across parliament. And the Prime Minister, in good faith, took that offer on and made the motion his own. By the time we vote on this—either later today or tomorrow—it is hard to believe that this motion is still supported by every member of the House of Representatives. The second paragraph of the motion—of a 20-year-old motion—says that the House:

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

It simply cannot be the case that every member of the parliament still believes that. I have no doubt that this motion reflects the majority view of our parliament. But I cannot reconcile that second paragraph with the words that we have heard in recent days from Australia's Minister for Immigration, when he put the argument not that the Fraser government let the wrong people in but that the people who were let in had children and grandchildren who have behaved in an unacceptable way—and therefore used the phrase that the government had 'made a mistake'. The only point of continuity with those people was that they, being the grandchildren of the people who came through under the Fraser government, were of the same race, were of the same ethnicity and adhered to the same creed. There is no way of reconciling the words of the minister for immigration with the words of this motion. I wish there were.

I want this resolution, which is about who we are as a country, to be something that both sides of politics can unanimously agree on. When the Leader of the Opposition put this motion forward and said it is time to move it again, it was not intended to be a wedge through the government. It was not intended to be a point of division; it was intended to be a statement of unity. I cannot, for the life of me, see how that second paragraph of this resolution can in any way be reconciled with the views that the minister for immigration has now put forward.

In those views that the minister for immigration has put forward, he has connected issues of race, ethnicity and religion with crime. This part of the language is not new. Back when we had a debate in the 1980s about whether Asian immigration should be held back, the language at the time was about triad gangs, Asian gangs and gangs in Cabramatta. In the sixties and seventies, when people were arguing about whether or not Italian immigration was appropriate, the language then was about the links to the Mafia and about crime. I do not accept for one minute that the serious issues of national security that we are dealing with are an excuse to legitimise the racial profiling of a community based on its children and grandchildren.

I support this motion because I support its principles and the way they define our nation. I genuinely believe that there is a majority of members in the government who believe and support every clause of this motion. I have no doubt whatsoever that what has been put forward by the minister for immigration is damaging and no better than those arguments that were put forward 20 years ago opposing Asian immigration or those arguments that were put forward in the sixties and seventies opposing migration of Greeks and Italians.

I have no doubt that the comments from the minister for immigration will win him votes. I do not care! There has to be a time when we are willing to provide a level of leadership to bring a country together. I expect the comments from the minister for immigration will not result in any change of immigration policy. He will hint at it and he will tempt at it, but I suspect the policy will not in fact change. I suspect also that it will not add a single job to Australia nor a dollar to our GDP. But I know some things that it will do. It will make the work of our security agencies harder. It will cause people to feel marginalised when we want them to feel 100 per cent part of our community. It will cause some people, a small minority, to have a sense of licence and permission to belittle and abuse some of their fellow citizens, and that has already commenced.

There are two sorts of Australian stories: an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander story that goes all the way back to the first sunrise, and a story of immigration. Every Australian either has one or both of those stories. Modern Australia is about bringing those 24 million stories together. That is what it is. Part of the role of the minister for immigration is making sure that we are as cohesive as possible in making sure that people who might feel marginalised in fact feel every word that is in our citizenship oath.

I do not want there to be partisanship in a motion like this. The reason it was brought forward was that we believed at the time that we would have a unanimous statement from the parliament that would ostracise some of the voices that have come into the other place and make clear that, while they have been given a really loud microphone, they do not represent the majority of this parliament, they do not represent the story of bipartisan support for modern, multicultural Australia.

I want it to be true. The Prime Minister backed the general work of the Minister for Immigration but he did not back those particular words. While ministers for immigration have at different times dealt with challenges in immigration policies and settlement policies for different communities in Australia, you have to go all the way back to the days of the White Australia policy to find a minister for immigration referring to communities that should be excluded based on race or religion. You have to go that far back.

We should not underestimate the choices that are being made by this parliament right now. While we might be concerned at the extent to which some racist voices have been handed a big megaphone, there is no megaphone louder in this country than the voice of the parliament itself—and it is at its loudest when we stand together. You cannot equivocate on this stuff: you either support and believe in modern multicultural Australia or you do not—and I have no doubt that the vast majority in this House and the other place do. I implore the Minister for Immigration not to go down the path he has started to step down. There is a way through for him to simply talk about settlement policies, about integration policies, about bringing people into the centre and not link it back to whether a mistake was made by letting people in the door at all based on their race or religion. There is a way forward and I want him to take it. We will define what sort of country we are, and no country has ever grown to prosperity by excluding a minority.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by reiterating some of the sentiments of the previous speaker. We want this motion to be unanimous and we want people in this parliament to support the spirit and ideals of the motion. One of the best ways to get there is not to use it as an opportunity for partisan political discussions designed to divide society but to focus on how we are all coming together as a country. Hopefully, every member of the House of Representatives appeals to the idea that we are all equal before the law and everybody has a place in this country regardless of their background. This is not an opportunity for members to score cheap political points because they think it will get them some attention in a newspaper or enable them to go off and send messages to one section of the community or another, as part of their grandstanding exercise, rather than focus on things that improve the human condition. And that is where I was disappointed with the previous speaker and the way he conducted himself. In the end, he was not focusing on what we could do to bring the parliament together and support this motion unanimously. He used it as an opportunity to grandstand so that he himself could score cheap political points. And that is exactly what this motion is designed to stop.

This motion is designed to focus on how we bring the country together and move it forward together. When you look through the principles that underpin it, it is extremely straightforward. It is based on a motion that was passed 20 years ago, through the leadership of John Howard. It is a motion to reaffirm our commitment to 'the right of all Australians to enjoy equal rights and be treated with equal respect regardless of their background'. We all agree. It is a motion to reaffirm our commitment to 'maintaining an immigration policy that is wholly non-discriminatory on grounds of race, colour, creed or origin'. Let's face it, it should also include any other irrelevant attributes. It also says:

(3) reaffirms its commitment to the process of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, in the context of redressing their profound social and economic disadvantage;

(4) reaffirms its commitment to maintaining Australia as a culturally diverse, tolerant and open society, united by an overriding commitment to our nation, and its democratic institutions and values; and

(5) denounces racial intolerance in any form as incompatible with the kind of society we are and want to be.

At every point, all I have heard from people on the government side—all the ministers, all the members of parliament—has been a commitment to that process and a commitment to those ideals and values. When we use it as an opportunity to divide because we think we score cheap political points it is not just that we distract from the central thrust of it, it is that we undermine and send a message, somehow, to the rest of the community that these values are not shared and extolled. That is why this government takes values and principles so strongly—as do I. In fact, these values in many ways are some of the key reasons that I sought to enter public life in the first place. Because there is no place in society for people to face marginalisation or exclusion simply because of who they are and the basis of how they live their lives.

What we want is a society where everybody feels an equal investment and an opportunity to contribute, both economically and socially, to build this country from the bottom up, where we have individuals who come together to form families, community and ultimately country. That is the type of country we want to be. That is how we achieve a more just society. It is about how we take everybody forward together.

We know full well that we still have enormous challenges, particularly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, in making sure that they can move forward together as part of Australian society around issues of health and economic disadvantage. That is why as Human Rights Commissioner I was very proud to work on issues directly around improving the economic opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and enabling them to use their land and property rights to achieve greater economic participation, not just as an end in itself but so that we could go on and build opportunities for a greater social dividend for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, particularly those outside capital cities. I was very happy to enjoy the support of the Attorney-General, George Brandis, and the government in doing that work, because there was so much advantage to it. I might add that I had the support also of many senior Indigenous leaders.

That is how you take a country forward together. It is not done by focusing on points of negativity and division to try to achieve some political exercise. You take a country forward together by focusing on the points that unite us as a country and, as the motion says at the end, appeals to our idea of the kind of society and country that we want to be. That is why this government has had such a generous and ongoing commitment to a non-discriminatory global humanitarian program. That commitment, despite the hyperbole and the vented and confected outrage that, let's face it, has come from some of the other speakers, remains utterly resolute from the minister as well as from the government.

Last financial year the government delivered a total refugee and humanitarian program of 17,555 places, which included 15,502 offshore places. That is the largest offshore intake in Australia in 30 years, and was done under this current minister. Australia's annual refugee and humanitarian program is set to grow to 18,750 by 2018-19. That is one of the most generous permanent resettlement programs in the world. We achieve that because we have a strong border protection, we have a commitment from the government to make sure that people smugglers are not rewarded and we have now, to the government's great credit, efforts to resettle in the United States as well as potentially other countries people who were held in offshore detention.

You cannot build public confidence and public support for higher rates of migration, generally, as well as for helping people who are seeking asylum from across the world unless the public believes that the borders are secure, that there is a process by which people are treated equally and with dignity and that people's assessment of their claims is based on the legitimacy of their claims, not on their process of arrival. That is what this government has achieved and is one of its great achievements and legacies that it will continue to contribute to the development of this great country. By maintaining public confidence in this issue of border security, which is so vital, the government has continued to be able to offer 16,350 visas since July 2015 to those displaced by the conflict in Syria and Iraq—helping people based on legitimacy of their need, not on the process of their arrival. We have also had been able to offer 5,490 people who have been interviewed and assessed as meeting the threshold requirements for a visa and are awaiting the outcomes of health, character and security checks. These new Australians—new Australians—will be provided with the best opportunity to start productive lives and reach their full potential. That is what we want—that is something that is good for our country. Those are the values and the spirit the motion the Prime Minister has moved and which we are debating and discussing, and hopefully supporting, very much seeks to achieve.

The government is proudly sustaining our world-class resettlement services. Entrants are eligible for the same social service benefits as other humanitarian entrants, including Medicare, income support payments, English language tuition, torture and trauma counselling and settlement services. The objective of that is to take people and to enable them to best integrate into Australian society, and then go on and live productive lives. That again goes to the heart and the spirit of the program of the government, but equally what it seeks to achieve when we bring people here is that they can be full participants as new Australians. We are committed to enabling these new Australians to become self-reliant, to stand on their own two feet, not just so they can take care of themselves, though that is very important, but so they can assist those who come in similar waves of migration to contribute to this great country and participate equally in all of Australian society.

That is at the heart of what liberalism is—it is a political philosophy built on the idea and the capacity of the individual to make their maximum contribution, to live their lives and be able to make their commitment and contribution to our society. That is why the spirit of this motion goes to the heart of liberalism itself—not labourism, which in the past, sadly, has been at times deliberately exclusionary—which focuses on those uniting principles that bind all people, that sit in the heart of Liberal philosophy and that motivate us, including yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, to leave our community and come onto the national stage and be able to reaffirm those basic commitments of liberty for all. That is why I support this motion. I hope other members of this House do. In fact, I agree with the aspirations of the previous speaker, the member for Watson, and my hope is that support for this motion is achieved unanimously. In the end it does send a message about the type of country we want to be—united, focused on the future and building the potential of every single Australian, new or old, to contribute to this great country. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion on equality for all Australians. I believe Australians see themselves, rightly, as an egalitarian society and it is vital that we affirm and continue to reaffirm our commitment to equal rights for all in this nation. But in this debate it is equally vital that we ask ourselves what is it exactly that creates and most importantly maintains and protects equal rights. While legislation is important, unless a society is able to adapt and be flexible in the face of changing circumstances, equal rights can become questionable, questioned and challenged. There is no doubt that Australia has made a very successful commitment to human rights. I think we have been one of the most successful countries in the entire world. I cannot think of another nation that has done better in this area than us. But it is imperative that we continue to remind ourselves, and others, of the need for and positive benefits of equal rights. Changes in legislation are important—no-one can deny that—but legislation alone does not ensure equal rights. As we have seen through the debate on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, legislation can be changed, undermining equal rights at the drop of a hat. Unless the wider community is convinced of the importance of defending equal rights, these rights will remain vulnerable.

It is our job as policy and law makers to ensure that we make a strong case for the protection of equal rights. My electorate of Hindmarsh is a very diverse community. As I have said many times in this place, approximately 200 languages are spoken in my electorate. People have settled there from every corner of the world, from the traditional postwar migrants to the new emerging communities. Every language that you can possibly think of, every nation you can possibly think of is represented within my electorate.

In 2016, the ABS estimated almost 27 per cent of Hindmarsh residents were born overseas. Since postwar migration began, Australia has been taking in approximately one million immigrants each decade from every region of the world, and today 15 per cent of the population report that they speak a language other than English at home. I am so proud of the cultural diversity within our nation, and within my electorate of course, because, as I said, I do not think there is any nation in the world that has done it better than us.

I have always been a fighter to protect this great cultural diversity, and our multiculturalism, and I will continue to do so, as I know many others in this place will do so, because I believe that our successful multicultural society is truly one of the greatest assets that we have in this nation. Multiculturalism has been an important element in the making of modern Australia, and has been critical to fostering social cohesion and inclusion. It has underpinned cohesion and inclusion, and, through multiculturalism, the Australian experience has shown that diversity can absolutely go hand in hand with stronger social cohesion. This is undoubtedly thanks to successive governments on both sides who have supported multiculturalism and, of course, the broader labour movement.

Official racial discrimination, in the form of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901—more commonly known as the White Australia policy—was not removed until the 1970s when the policies around multiculturalism emerged. It was the Whitlam Labor government that set about addressing many of these inequalities, followed by the Fraser and Hawke governments. I remember as a teenager, back in the seventies, attending one of my community's annual functions, the Greek Orthodox ball. This particular night we had some very honoured guests—I will never forget it—and the whole community with just astounded by the attendance of Gough Whitlam and Don Dunstan. It was the first time we had ever seen people of that calibre attend one of our functions. I remember how excited everyone was—and that memory is still vivid in my mind, which could have been something that threw me into politics. To have this great man there, the Prime Minister of Australia, giving a speech and telling us how he valued our community, how he saw the contribution that our community had made, was something that we had never witnessed before. From that moment onwards, I recall feeling equal to everyone else. Any inadequacies that I had about being from a different background or perhaps my parents speaking a different language, being different, was thrown out the window that night because we felt equal. I remember it very well. We still talk about that night in my community in South Australia.

Let us not forget that immigration to Australia was closely tied to labour market needs. My parents came here after World War II, from a nation that had been absolutely decimated by war. They came here with very little English. They worked in the lowest paid jobs, but they managed to carve out a life for themselves. They did that because of the labour laws that existed in this country. There was a debate after World War II, when we decided to open up immigration—if you look at the Hansards, you will see the debates—where, on the one hand, there was a group within this place, and outside in industry, that agreed with bringing in migrant workers, but wanted to have them on lower pay rates than Australian workers. On the other hand, there was the view of the labour movement that staunchly said, no, they would be on the same pay rates as everyone else if they come out here. And you can imagine how life would have been so different had that not prevailed back then. So in addressing equality, we need to also address inequality in the workplace. We see today many people coming out on different types of visas. I say this: if we have a shortage in particular areas, bring them out as migrants to settle in this nation, to be part of our community, to fill the gaps that are required and to become Australians. Like all of us have. That is really important.

In addressing equality, the workplace is fundamental. In 1973, the then Labor government ratified ILO convention 111. This required a commitment to remove discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, gender, political opinion, national extraction or social origin. Importantly, however, it also involved taking positive action to promote real equality of opportunity in employment. In 1973, the government's position was fully supported by business, the ACTU and the state governments. As a result of this commitment, the first federal antidiscrimination law, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, was enacted, making it unlawful to take certain actions by reason of race, colour, religion or national or ethnic origin of a person or a relative or associate of that person.

However, before the bill was introduced into parliament, the conservative then Liberal-National Party coalition government came to power in 1975. It took another nine years and a Labor Party victory before this legislation was finally passed. During this period, those states which had Labor Party governments put in place their own antidiscrimination legislation. They took matters into their own hands, enabling citizens to make formal complaints in the face of discrimination based on gender, race, ethnic origin, religion and physical disability.

So, while Australia today can be very proud of its equality, it clearly has not always been the case. We only need to recall our treatment of Indigenous Australians, the White Australia policy, the Cronulla riot and our growing mistrust of certain nationalities. Today sometimes I despair when I hear language that is being used in reference to diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism. More and more I hear words of fear, of exclusion, calls for the building of walls and fortresses, calls for the banning of certain clothing, calls for the banning of certain foods and even calls for the banning of certain groups from entering the country. These voices are very, very few, but they are very loud. We must remember that: they are very few but unfortunately very loud.

There is no doubt that the recent demonisation of refugees has contributed to the language of fear, and it is contaminating the way we view our cultural diversity. But I am certain that in this place, if we take a moment to see this within a global context, we know that there are over 60 million refugees seeking refuge. I support united, equal rights for all, not just for some but for everyone. (Time expired)

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise here today to talk about equality for all Australians. I have spent a long part of my life talking about equality and working towards equality. I have devoted many years to that. So I stand here today torn, I guess, in speaking about this issue. On the one hand, I think: it is the year 2016. Shouldn't we, as a progressive, First World nation, take it for granted that all Australians have equal rights and that the equal rights for all Australians are embedded in everything that we do? Don't all Australians already enjoy equal rights? Why do we even need to be talking about this in this day and age?

But, on the other hand, I know through my own experiences that, though we have formal equal rights for most things—bar of course marriage equality—and for most people, those formal rights that are by law accorded to all Australians do not necessarily translate into substantive equality and into substantive rights, into an equality where all Australians are not just accorded equal rights but have equal access to opportunities and equal outcomes. That kind of equality recognises that not all of us start life on an equal playing field. The provision of equal rights for all means that no single person's rights or the rights for some group are over and above anyone else's rights or the rights of another group.

This morning I spoke to the media about an experience I had while growing up. When I was 10 years old, I was pursued by a young girl of the same age, 10 years old, in the schoolyard. For some reason she disliked me from the very first day I started at this new school. As a 10-year-old, I never quite understood why she disliked me. I had never done anything to her. We had never had any real altercations in the schoolyard, but Christine—that was her name—and her friend Iris would seek me out every single lunchtime and every single recess time. They would follow me around the playground and taunt me. One lunch time it culminated in Christine spitting in my face, telling me that I was a dirty Muslim, a dirty Arab, and that she hated me because I did not believe in Jesus. Of course, Muslims do believe in Jesus, but that was beside the point. I then went to my teacher Mrs Phillips. I was very distraught when I reported to her what Christine had just done. Rather than her offer any kind of comfort, rather than pull up Christine and Iris for the comments they had made, it was a case of: we are not considered equal.

I note that there are some people in this parliament and in this government who would seek to argue that they have a right to free speech. I would ask those people whether they think that their right to free speech is better than or worth more than my right to feel protected, whether they think that their right to be a bigot is worth more than my right to have a form of recourse, to have some form of justice, to be able to call out the things, the activities, the behaviours that are taken against me not because of anything I have said or not because of anything I have done but simply because of the colour of my skin.

We cannot claim to have an Australia where all Australians are equal if we do not pursue all rights equally. We cannot claim to have an Australia where every Australian has equal rights if we pursue the rights of one group over and above the rights of another group. All rights are worth pursuing and all rights are worth pursuing equally. So I ask: is my life and my rights the lesser? Am I second-class citizen where my right to feel protected is less than somebody's right to be a bigot? These are questions that I think we should not have to ask in the year 2016; but, sadly, we do have to ask them.

This morning I received death threats. I do not worry about myself because, in this place, I am afforded the protections that not many people are afforded. But these were death threats against my family. Somebody came out and said that they would like to kill my family. Where are my rights?

Can we honestly say that all Australians have equal rights when we are sitting in this parliament debating about whether or not we should take away an essential law that has served Australia well for 20 years, a part of the Racial Discrimination Act that has served Australia well for 20 years and that has protected people like me for 20 years? Can we honestly say that we have achieved equal rights for all Australians?

Just to finish: we cannot talk about equal rights for all Australians without also talking about the substantive and very real fact that inequality exists for many Australians in many, many different ways, not just in the ways that I have just mentioned through my personal story but for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, for our LGBTIQ communities and for the communities of the outer suburbs for whom inequality exists in the lack of access to infrastructure, services and job opportunities. In my electorate of Cowan, a child growing up in Wanneroo is 30 per cent less likely to finish school. A family living in Lockridge has half the income of those in the inner suburbs.

Until we recognise the inequality that exists for people in Australia in all its forms, not just in the forms that affect people like me—because, let us face it, I am also privileged to be in the position that I am in and feel honoured to be in the position that I am in. Inequality also exists for people who are not racially different or who are not religious minorities. It exists in different ways for different people in Australia. Until we recognise the real and substantive impact of those inequalities across Australia, diversely across all forms and all backgrounds for all Australians, we can never stop talking about this. We need to continue talking about this, and, more than that, we need to continue taking action to ensure that those inequalities do not continue to affect standards of living, quality of life and mental health for people across Australia. For we will never be truly free, and we will never be a truly progressive country, until we are all well and truly equal.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in relation to this motion moved by the Prime Minister and supported by Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, in what was intended to be a moment of national unity reflecting the same type of moment of national unity that occurred 20 years ago in 1996 when then Prime Minister John Howard and Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, moved a motion in the same terms. Since this motion was moved, it has become, if anything, more important for national leadership on issues of unity than ever before in the history of this nation. We are in a situation today where decades of commitment to multiculturalism, immigration and reconciliation are at risk of being eroded—where that progress is at risk of being eroded—and that is a terrible thing for our nation. Not only is it a terrible thing because of the sharp end of bigotry and racism but it is a terrible thing because multiculturalism, immigration and movements towards reconciliation have done so much for this country over such a long period of time.

It is estimated that 10 million people have arrived and settled in Australia since the First Fleet came here. Seven million of them have come to Australia since 1945, so there has been a massive amount of postwar migration to Australia. That massive amount of postwar migration means that, today, one in four Australians was born overseas and almost half of Australians—46 per cent—have at least one parent who was born overseas. That is contributing to making us the incredibly successful multicultural country that we have been for a very long time. It is estimated that migrants provide an estimated fiscal benefit of over $10 billion in their first 10 years of settlement here in Australia, so it is not just a cultural contribution, which is in and of itself very important, but an economic one.

The economic impacts are worth mentioning because they are so significant. Migration Council Australia estimated that by 2050 migration would be contributing $1.6 trillion to Australia's GDP. It will have added 15.7 per cent to Australia's workforce participation rate, 21.9 per cent to after-tax real wages for low-skilled workers and 5.9 per cent in GDP per capita growth. They have estimated that by 2050 each individual migrant would be contributing, on average, 10 per cent more to Australia's economy than existing residents.

That is not the only set of reporting or modelling in relation to the economic contributions of migrants. Professor Graeme Hugo's report Economic, social and civic contributions of first and second generation humanitarian entrants, which was a study commissioned by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, found that refugees and other humanitarian entrants provided significant economic benefit to our country. The report's analysis of data by country of birth found that for second-generation humanitarian arrivals—people whose parents came here as refugees—at least half of the nationality groups had a higher level of participation than the Australian-born population and that, because humanitarian entrants are highly entrepreneurial, with a higher than average proportion of those entrants engaging in small and medium business enterprises, that makes a contribution to our economy. Also there is the willingness of people who have come from very difficult situations to fill some low-wage and low-skilled jobs.

All of these things are an economic contribution to our nation, and we should remember them, but more importantly when we talk about national unity we should remember the sort of country that we want to be. We should remember the sort of country that we dream of being. Racism, the coarsening of public debate, public attacks and vilification do not just hurt the people who are vilified; they hurt everyone. They hurt our entire society. No-one gets to live on an island in Australia—in a metaphorical sense; obviously there are people living on islands! No person gets to live isolated from our society. That is not the way it works. No matter how wealthy you are, no matter how poor you are, no matter what you do or where you have come from, the nature of Australian society affects your life.

That is why we should be very concerned about some of the division that is starting to arise. In my own electorate it took the form of a party that was aimed at stopping Muslim immigration into Australia and that ran against me at the last federal election. It is also a situation where you see vilification and abuse online. The sorts of things that nobody would even have thought of saying on the street 20 years ago are now routinely written online.

I was particularly thinking about this today. I was recently in the media talking about a racial vilification case where some students had been alleged to have written some Facebook posts after not being able to use an Indigenous-specific computer lab, using words like, 'Where's the white supremacist lab?' and, 'Why are we meeting segregation with segregation?' There was a Facebook post—and the person whose name was on it said it was a hacking, of course—using the phrase 'ITT' and then the n-word. There were a number of matters alleged in this case.

The case itself was not successful, because the judge found that there was no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out around eight months after the applicants had made a strike-out application. That, to me, goes to show something really important, which is that the vilification laws are quite narrow in this country, and rightly so. You want to have vilification laws that meet their aims of both signalling the inappropriateness and wrongness of vilification and providing a remedy when the worst cases of vilification arise.

I spoke about that case on television recently, and today I received an email from someone I have known for a long time but not very well, and that is Susan Moriarty. She wrote to me:

I am the lawyer acting for Cindy Prior—

who was the applicant in that case. She said:

Up until Friday 18 November, there were over 9,000 comments—

online—

about Cindy's case. It has been like being forced to watch a public flogging. 'Just kill her - problem solved' wrote one North American on The Australian Facebook page, while another wrote 'wrap that bitch in plastic and sink her in the sea'. Another wrote 'let's get crowd funding going, so we can bankrupt this black bitch' while another wrote 'she can't have been vilified because if she had she'd been lynched by now'. Another wrote 'this black—

'c-word'—

has set back the constitutional amendment - remember that Prior'. Another screamed for her ovaries to be torn from her body and burned so that she could never breed.

Ms Moriarty wrote:

On and on and on and on went these murderous inclinations by white Australia. She arrived home to read this on her Facebook –

I just want you to know that you're a racist bigot and should be held accountable for your racist bigotry. Instead of you flashing a victim card while discriminating against individuals on the basis of their race, why don't you take a step back and realise what a hypocrite and unbelievably racist piece of shit you are

'c-word. F-word you.'—

You need special treatment because you cannot take responsibility for yourself as an individual. Anyone giving you special treatment is just practicing soft bigotry of low expectations. They expect you to be a leech, you

'f-ing c-word.' Ms Moriarty went on to say:

Six month ago, the 'White Lives Matter' movement ... leafleted her—

the applicant's—

suburb in Western Australia. Because she—

the applicant—

was unambiguously an indigenous Australian she had remained hidden indoors for several days.

What is also interesting is the reaction of some people who went onto a Facebook page that had been created by a former QUT student after that case had been struck out. It was struck out in early November. It makes for pretty awful reading, to be honest. Students or apparent students—maybe they had all been hacked—wrote: 'ITT: n-word' the same quote that had been alleged in this matter. There was a chap—it appears to be a chap, but it is Facebook and maybe they had all been hacked—who said:

All the aboriginals accomplished in forty thousand years in Australia is just some shit finger paintings.

Another person said:

Apparently they're the only "civilisation" to never independently invent the wheel

Another person said: 'ITT n-word', again, the same quote that was alleged in the case. Another person said:

Where's the white supremacist computer lab so I can continue this thread properly

Another person said:

I wonder if you can say ITT—

'n-word'—

on ss2.0 again?

The respondent who was alleged to have said it appears to have said—it may not be him; maybe it was hacked:

Give it a crack what's the worst that can happen?

These things are very concerning. It is a coarsening of our public debate and we should be very worried about it.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion instigated by the opposition leader and moved by the Prime Minister. It is a very important motion that we speak on today: the right of all Australians to enjoy equal rights and be treated with equal respect, regardless of race, colour, creed or origin. It is a very important motion and I am proud to speak here today in the people's place, in Parliament House, where we reaffirm our commitment to ensure that all Australians can enjoy the rights and respectful treatment that is often taken for granted by some of us. This is an important matter, irrespective of whether you are an Indigenous Australian or your ancestors migrated here as convicts or free settlers or arrived here recently from Holland or wherever, or even if you came here seeking asylum, or any other permutation of those. We are not first-, second- or third-generation migrants; we are all Australians who have some of those other characteristics. It saddens me greatly when I hear that members of the multicultural community, especially in my electorate of Moreton, have been treated disrespectfully. My dear departed mum taught me that good manners are always important, and I know that my mum never got anything wrong, so I think she was on the money. Sadly, it still happens that people are treated disrespectfully, as we have heard from speakers in the bipartisan support for this motion.

In fact, just last week, members of the Taiwanese, Rwandan, Indian, Fijian, Egyptian, Filipino, Bosnian, Pakistani and South African communities joined me in my electorate office to hear the member for Cowan talk about her experience of growing up in a multicultural community. It was a fascinating discussion but, sadly, many of those present at that table shared their own stories of being the victims of racial discrimination. The shared their very real concerns about the possibility of racial discrimination laws being watered down. I am fortunate that my community on Brisbane's south side is pretty much a model of inclusive cultural diversity. I am not being naive; I know that there are still some racists in the community who sometimes get frustrated and articulate things that are horrible, and every now and then there are some manifestations of racism. But, on the whole, our community—like much of modern-day Queensland, I would suggest—celebrates our diversity and the contributions that members of communities have made to Australia irrespective of where they have come from.

I would just like to mention a few of these considerable contributions. The Sunnybank RSL, with the support of the local Chinese community, created a memorial for all those Chinese Australians, or people of Chinese heritage, who have served Australia in past wars. The memorial recognises soldiers like Billy Sing and Caleb Shang, who fought in the First World War, and Jack Wong Sue, who served Australia in World War II, to name but a few. There are many other great stories of courage and bravery by the Chinese Australian diaspora, and they have been commemorated by this memorial. Just one of the stories, a well-known story, is that of Private Billy Sing, who was a sniper with the Australian 5th Light Horse Regiment. He was a kangaroo shooter originally but went over to Gallipoli and was conservatively credited with more than 150 kills in Gallipoli. He was known to his fellow soldiers as 'the assassin' and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for conspicuous gallantry as a sniper at ANZAC.

The memorial itself was a labour of love for the Chinese community and it has contributed to stronger links between that community and the local RSL. It is a continuing reminder of the diversity, cooperation, understanding and friendship that exists on Brisbane's south side, and it also goes a long way to recognising the slights and racism that existed, perhaps, 100 years ago when people were allowed to fight and die for their country but were not allowed to own land because they were seen to be not Australian because they were Chinese—and there are others.

I also point out that the success of the Chinese war memorial has inspired a commemoration of contributions from other communities. There is currently a project underway, which I am excited to be a part of, to erect a memorial for the Indian Australian service men and women who contributed to Australian war efforts in the past and are doing so now. I was pleased to attend a dinner just a few weeks ago, where the winning design for this memorial was announced. We had a mock-up of the winning design, and 11 students from Griffith University turned up at the dinner. I think it is going to be a great project, so I look forward to working with the Indian Australian community and to seeing that completed memorial in due course. Like the Chinese memorial, there will also be bursaries associated with the memorial, so you will have the physical memorial but then you will have the living bursary where students from local high schools will be urged to research and tell those stories.

I would also like to mention the contribution of another Australian. I was very pleased to attend an event on the weekend where the member for Fisher was representing the Prime Minister. It was for the Australian African community and, at the event on Saturday night, an award was given for an act of incredible bravery by a former refugee from Sudan. Aguek Nyok came to Australia as a refugee from Sudan and now drives a taxi in Brisbane. He took a break from collecting his passengers to get a haircut at the local Moorooka shops one day last month, and as he left the hairdresser's shop he saw smoke billowing out of a bus on Beaudesert Road—at a bus stop that I walk through every morning when I am in Brisbane. Aguek saw passengers trapped inside and bashed open the back door and, by his bravery, saved 11 people who were trapped inside the bus, which was filling up with toxic fumes. This was an incredible act of bravery. Many people would not run towards flames, especially in a bus that might explode. But this brave Australian says:

I just helped people and that is what I am expecting from my fellow Australians if I was in the same situation.

We can all learn from his bravery and, dare I say it, his humility. Aguek Nyok was the very worthy recipient of the African Australians Bravery and Heroes Award at the celebration of African Australians national awards held at the Brisbane City Hall on Saturday night.

As I said, I am very lucky to be constantly reminded in my community of the valuable contributions that can be made by all Australians in a diverse and inclusive community. This motion reaffirms our commitment to maintaining that successful inclusive community. The success of our multicultural communities is in large part dependent on continuing to denounce racial intolerance. The recently announced inquiry into freedom of speech will look at how our laws that prevent racial hate speech are working. It is important to remember that freedom of speech has no explicit constitutional protection. Commonwealth, state and territory legislative protections are not absolute. They contain necessary limits to accommodate the countervailing public interest. There can be a natural tension between one person's right to be free from racial discrimination and another person's perception that they have a right to speak freely. The total freedom of one will negate the rights of the other. It is necessary for good governments to balance these important rights.

Prime Minister Gough Whitlam introduced the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. From memory, I do not think it was broadly supported by the Liberal Party, apart from Neville Bonner, the senator from Queensland; nevertheless, the Fraser government did not do anything to abolish the Racial Discrimination Act when it was in power. This important legislation has been protecting individuals against discrimination for 41 years. Then, just over 20 years ago, the protections in section 18C and exemptions contained in section 18D were added. Then Attorney-General Michael Lavarch said in his second reading speech to introduce the bill:

This bill is an appropriate and measured response to closing the identified gap in the legal protection of all Australians from extreme racist behaviour. It strikes a balance between the right of free speech and the other rights and interests of Australia and Australians.

In the years since 18C was added the Human Rights Commission has received about 100 complaints a year, and most of these are resolved through a conciliation process. Only about five end up in court annually. Obviously the claims are limited. I am supportive of the idea that we do not offend people because of their race, obviously. Religion is something to discuss as another topic. I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for this motion before the chamber.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion has languished in the basement of parliamentary business for a couple of months—two months does not sound like a lot of time to most Australians but if you look at what has gone on over the last two months, it has been a very long time indeed. Last night I read the Prime Minister's speech on this motion. It was a good speech—a very good speech. There was not a word in there that I could not agree with. Sadly, it was very difficult, looking at the Prime Minister who gave that speech two months ago, who spoke most eloquently and passionately in support of this motion, to recognise the Prime Minister who has done very little in the last couple of days to confront the rising tide of bigotry, including bigotry in this place.

The motion reconfirms our commitment to the right of all Australians to enjoy equal rights—a policy which is based wholly on non-discriminatory grounds when it comes to race, colour, creed or country of origin. It reaffirms our commitment to the process of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; it reaffirms our commitment to maintaining Australia as a culturally diverse, tolerant and open society. How easy would it have been during question time yesterday for the Prime Minister to repeat those words that he spoke so passionately not two months ago? What has changed?

Much has been written in the last two weeks about what has changed: Trumpism and the US election; back further we can look at Brexit—the vote by millions of Brits to excise themselves from the European Union; and closer to home we can look at the results of the 2016 election and now the monumental swing against the National Party in the New South Wales by-election in Orange.

From Australia, Trumpism looks like a disaffection with the political class—technocrats, the city elites and the experts. Those very same insiders, those experts, are now bemoaning what appears to them to be post-facts politics. In fact, they do it with the exact same vigour the way that their detractors conclude that all of those facts and all those theories are just a conspiracy from the insiders, those very people who are controlling and making the decisions that we do not agree with. There is more than a nagging suspicion amongst this group that the trade deals have got more downside than upside, unless you are a merchant banker. It is a belief that immigration policy is working against their interest in some sort of zero-sum, one-more-mouth-to-feed way. In all this, words like 'innovation', 'modernity', 'economic change' and even 'multiculturalism' sound like doublespeak for a future that does not include these people.

There is a lot we can recognise in our own country in all of this. It really is not that hard to understand if you are listening and, of course, can be a stretch if it is a long way from your lived experience. If you are a city professional putting in 50 to 60 hours a week and pulling in your six-zero-figured salary, it might be a bit hard to understand that upwards of a million Australians are in jobs where they are not getting enough hours to bring in the income which is meeting their cost of living. If you are working these mad hours in the inner city, it might be very difficult for you to understand that there are people who are in a casual or a part-time job who do not have enough work to pay their bills.

If you stop listening, you are not going to hear what they are saying. If you are listening, you might hear the guy who is saying: 'I no longer have a permanent job' or 'I'm 29 years of age and I've never had a permanent job' or 'For the last month, I've spent four hours travelling to and from work everyday for a job that I may not have in six months time and people ask me why I don't move from the place where I live to the place where I'm working. I tell you reason I don't move is because I can't afford to rent or buy a house there and I don't even know if I'm going to have that job in a few months time.' These are the people who are deeply concerned with what is going on in Australia and we hear their concerns. When you have a decent conversation with these people, when you duck below the dog-whistling and all the noise and the concern and you talk to them about their concerns, you talk to them about 'Islamophobia'—a word that they would never use—they might say, 'I really am concerned about all that bombing and that killing that is going on in Iraq and Syria, and I don't want that stuff going on here.' Is that too hard to understand? It really is not too hard to understand.

America with its politics, its economy and its culture are very different places to Australia but there are plenty of similarities. We are both advanced economies with cities that are fully embedded in the modern and international economy and regions that are in industrial decline. We have been trading nations that have enjoyed the benefits of trade with Asia and, in the case of the United States with Latin America, have been able to spread the benefits of that trade to jobs in labour-intensive sectors, particularly in resources and manufacturing. But now with the growth in Asian manufacturing capacity, it means that the region that was once the market for our goods is now the origins of our import competition. If you live in one of these big cities, the transition from the manufacturing economy to a service economy might have been less marked. But if you live in a region like mine, it has been extreme, and I know in your region, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, it has also been extreme. You see, the goods that you were once able to afford, which were the trade-off for those well-paid jobs—those goods have disappeared.

At the heart of this discontent is economics, because the truth for Australia and for the world is that we have dropped the ball when it comes to equality. There is growing inequality right across the board, but nowhere is it greater than between city and regional Australia. In the Illawarra on the South Coast, unemployment rates are three to five times those in the capital cities. Income disparity is growing rapidly. There are unacceptably high suicide rates all across the country, but these are multiplied by two and three and four in regional Australia. This is the circumstance which is breeding discontent; it is inequality which is breeding alienation and discontent. It is the way that we respond to this inequality which defines us. It is the way that we respond to the exclusion and the fear and uncertainty which defines us as a nation.

It would be quite open to us to use parliament and the privilege of our titles to stoke the fire of discontent. We could do that. We know that there are ready ears out there for that message—people who are already hurting, because they are not getting the benefits that the Prime Minister talks about of these never-more-exciting times where we are 'nimble'. That is another world to the world that these people live in. We could convince people that the real cause—of unemployment, of homelessness, of rental stress, of the time they are spending in a traffic jam, or of the train that does not run on time—is these wretched souls that are languishing in detention on Manus Island and Nauru, and that all we have to do as a nation is stop them coming to Australia. We could convince people that that was the truth, but that would be a lie.

It is the way that we respond to these things which defines us as humans. It defines us as parliamentarians. It defines us as people who have been sent here to uphold the best traditions of Australian democracy. Sadly, what we have seen on display over the last week is a long way from the eloquent words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition when they brought this motion into the House two months ago. This motion is the sort of bipartisanship that we need. It is bipartisanship around the best traditions of Australian democracy and not the worst.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was 20 years ago, almost to the day, that then Prime Minister Howard moved a motion, first proposed by opposition leader Kim Beazley, in the same words as the motion we are debating today: to reaffirm the commitment of the Australian government and the Australian parliament to equal rights. Looking back on Mr Howard's reflections in this place on that day does show that the more things change, the more they can stay the same. Mr Howard said:

It is natural that people, particularly those who feel themselves at the sharp end of challenge and anxiety in industries that have seen extensive job losses, should feel some sense of anxiety about immigration levels. It is our obligation to point out, where it is appropriate, the error in their understanding of the causation between immigration and job security.

It is no coincidence that the need to reaffirm this House's commitment to equal rights, regardless of race, colour, creed or origin, has come at another point in our history where some Australians are feeling left behind and where inequality is on the rise. It is very easy for politicians and so-called leaders to talk to those people—those who are out of work or feeling the pinch of an economic downturn—about patriotism and the supposed threat of immigration. It is easy to create an enemy, and to whip up fear and ride that sentiment into power, but that does not solve the problem. Those people who you were talking to remain out of work, down on their luck and struggling. Those who have come to Australia from across the seas, most of whom have given so much to our country, are caught in the middle, demonised for crimes they never committed to appease people they have never met. This creation of fear is not leadership. It is not what we are here to do.

Mr Beazley, on the day this motion was first brought, impressed upon this place the need for leadership. He said:

But each time each new wave of migrants came in — whether they were from southern Europe, eastern Europe, the Middle East and now more recently from Asia — there has been a requirement on the political leadership in this country to point out the advantage; to mould, insofar as we can, and without arrogance, community opinion that makes it acceptable and ensures that the community sustains its tolerant and decent traditions. There has been that requirement constantly upon us for leadership.

Over the past 200 years, Australia has made enormous progress on racial tolerance led by a series of true leaders. From a nation state born in conflict with the original inhabitants of this great land—built then on a foundation of a White Australia policy—over 200 years, we have begun to bridge that conflict with Indigenous Australia. We have deconstructed the White Australia policy. We have moved away from a sectarian society, and opened our nation up to immigration from Europe first and then across the globe. It would be a tragedy of the highest order for us to abandon that progress, to walk away from the achievements of our forebears and walk back towards the fear and hatred of a sectarian society. Right now, our country needs us all in this place to stand up.

The rights expressed in this motion are what our cousins in the United States would call 'self-evident truths'. They are the values that tie together our nations and bring together liberal democracies across the world. But being self evident does not mean that we do not have to fight for these rights. We must continue every day to press the case for a multicultural Australia; that our multicultural Australia is where we celebrate the practice of many cultures, but always consistent with and underpinned by Australian values.

We must remind ourselves and our constituents of the contributions that different cultures have made to Australia: the Irish Australians who moved here in the 19th century due to famine, like my family; the Chinese at the turn of the 20th century; the Eastern European Australians who came out after the Second World War and helped to build the Snowy Mountain Scheme, or the orchards that surround my electorate of Burt and the hills of Roleystone, Karragullen and Pickering; the Vietnamese Australians who came as refugees and who have become leaders across business, politics and the arts, like the South Australian Governor; the Lebanese Australians, like the former New South Wales Governor; and businessmen and philanthropists, and so many more, as well as those coming to Australia now like those from India and South Asia, through the western areas of the electorate of Burt. All of these people have one thing in common: they are Australians.

I would close by noting another comment by Mr Howard in his speech 20 years ago, which, given some of the commentary from recent days by government ministers, seems more striking than ever.

I remain very fond of the fact—

Mr Howard said—

that I was a member of the coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser which, in the late 1970s, chose to admit to this country tens of thousands of people from war-torn Indochina. Inevitably—

Mr Howard went on—

the character of Australia has changed as a result of this migration. Much of that change has been profoundly beneficial. I think this country owes an enormous debt to people who have chosen this as their home; people who have come from the four corners of the world.

This motion 20 years ago articulated the Australia that we were becoming as we moved into the 21st century. Today, 20 years later, the prosperity and unity of our nation relies on us living the values of this motion, and I am proud to reaffirm our commitment to tolerance and diversity today.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion to reaffirm Australia's bipartisan commitment to equality irrespective of race, creed, colour or origin, was moved by the Prime Minister on 10 October, just 47 days ago. It was another era because, on 10 October, Donald Trump was not the President-elect of the United States and Steve Bannon, a close ally of America's Neo-Nazi movement, was not the new Chief Strategist in the White House. When I put my name down to speak to this motion, I never intended to talk about America, but we must talk about it. There is a direct relevance to what is going on in America and the subject of this motion in Australia.

Before becoming Donald Trump's campaign chief of staff, Steve Bannon used to run a political website called Breitbart. Breitbart started out publishing news with a conservative viewpoint—somewhat like a hybrid of The Australian and TheDaily Telegraph newspapers. It was journalism but through a right-wing, wind-them-up prism with inflammatory headlines. Under Bannon, Breitbart became extreme, spreading the lies about Obama not being American. In July this year, Bannon bragged that he had transformed Breitbart into 'the platform for the alt-right movement'.

Because of Bannon, the alternative right and its leader, Richard Spencer, gained notoriety, influence and access to the political mainstream. Last week—in fact, just days ago—a video emerged of an alt-right conference held in a federal building in Washington DC. This is how TheNew York Times newspaper reported Spencer's address:

He railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German. America, he said, belonged to white people, whom he called the "children of the sun," a race of conquerors and creators who had been marginalized but now, in the era of President-elect Donald J Trump, were "awakening to their own identity."

As he finished, several audience members had their arms outstretched in a Nazi salute. When Mr Spencer, or perhaps another person standing near him at the front of the room—it was not clear who—shouted, "Heil the people! Heil victory," the room shouted it back.

You do not have to take TheNew York Times's word for it; there is a video—Nazi salutes and all. So let us be clear: the alternative right is an avowed movement of white supremacists—a group described by journalist Shaun King, who writes for the New York Daily News, as 'the KKK without the hoods, skinheads with suits and ties'. The alt-right has been enthusiastically supported by Steve Bannon, and Steve Bannon is now the chief strategist for the White House.

As journalist Shaun King reported earlier today:

When you build, fund, and promote the online home for the modern-day Neo-Nazi movement, and openly brag that you have done so, that makes you a supporter and enabler of Neo-Nazis. If someone built, funded, promoted, and openly admitted to creating the online home for the latest iteration of ISIS, you know what they'd be called? Terrorists.

So what does all of this have to do with Australia and the motion we are discussing today? We do not live in a vacuum. We cannot ignore what is happening in America, because it is happening across the Western world and it is starting to happen here—UKIP, Brexit, the deeply troubling rise of Le Pen's fascist National Front in France, far-right parties in governing coalitions across Europe and the re-emergence of One Nation in Australia.

In just the past week, the immigration minister made a deplorable comment that the government led by Malcolm Fraser 'did make mistakes in bringing some people in'. The minister went on to refer to Australians as 'second and third generation migrants' and sought to justify his comments by stating that the children and grandchildren of Muslim migrants from Lebanon were overrepresented as national security threats.

What the minister did not do was offer an explanation as to what mistake he believed the Fraser government had actually made. How, for example, would he have liked the government of the day to screen migrants? What was it about the screening process that was deficient? What magical device could have screened a migrant to check whether their child or grandchild growing up here might turn out to be a national security threat? I wonder whether the minister might make this wondrous device widely available so young couples can be screened now to see whether their children will end up being criminals. Perhaps he can screen me to tell me whether my future grandchildren will one day smoke pot—or worse, vote Liberal!

The code behind the minister's reprehensible comments was that the mistake made was that these migrants were Muslim or Lebanese, or both. If there is another way of reading it, I would like him to explain it to the parliament. So we have a minister this week criticising a decision to allow Lebanese Muslim migrants into Australia when, just 47 days ago, we had the Prime Minister move this motion to recommit to Australia's equality principle irrespective of race, colour, creed or origin. A lot sure has changed in 47 days.

This motion is proudly supported by Labor. My preference would have been to use this speech to talk in more detail about the many great things that immigration has provided Australia and how pleased I am that a commitment to equality continues to cross the political divide. After all, I am an immigrant. I arrived here in 1975, with my parents, at the age of seven. My brother was four. Our family became citizens. Of course, to run for election to this place, I was required to surrender my dual citizenship with the United Kingdom. But, apart from being called a pom at school and learning that you do not wear socks with sandals, I never really felt like an immigrant. I have always known in the back of my mind that, when we talk about immigrants in this country, we are not really talking about poms or kiwis; we are talking about people who are not white or whose first language is not English.

My parents left family behind when they brought us here, but the language, culture and religion were largely the same. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for people from Lebanon, whether Christian or Muslim, or the refugees from Vietnam, who arrived with just the shirts on their backs. But the vast majority of immigrants to this nation forged bright futures here. The success of Australia's immigration is testament to both the commitment of immigrants to their new country and Australia's willingness and ability to provide a welcoming new home. In the fields of science, mathematics, business, politics, education, the arts and others, immigrants and the children and grandchildren of immigrants—Australians—have made wondrous contributions. They deserve better than to be lumped in with the pitiful handful who have turned traitor.

I have spent much of this speech talking about what is happening in America—because, to address a problem, you first have to acknowledge that there is one. And there is a problem in the White House when someone like Steve Bannon has the President's ear. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his statement in reply to the Prime Minister: 'We need to do more than mouth words of respect. We must thoroughly and publicly reject racism wherever it occurs and whoever says it. There is no place in Australia for extremism no matter the party, no matter the agenda, no matter the importance of their vote.' I too believe we must call out racism when we see it, even—or perhaps especially—when it is given a home, a voice and a platform at the highest political levels of our most important ally and good friend, the United States of America.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16:00

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking to this motion on equal rights for all Australians that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the Prime Minister. I want to start by saying that I was in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, just before lunch listening to many of my colleagues speak to this motion. I particularly want to reflect on some of the comments that the member for Cowan made, clearly with a lot of emotion. She began her presentation by asking the rhetorical question: why in 2016 is it necessary that we talk about the preservation of rights and equality before the law for all Australians? I understood clearly where she was coming from. I might have asked myself that question too when I thought about speaking to this motion.

We should never take for granted the battles that we have won and the society that we have built here in Australia—a democratic society that has enshrined in law equality for all Australians regardless of their race, colour, creed or origin. We should never take for granted those hard-fought battles by generations of people before us and indeed members of parliament who were in the parliament before us. We should never take for granted that those battles have been won and we no longer need to concern ourselves about these inequalities. It is probably not a bad idea in 2016, some 20 years after the same motion was moved by Mr Howard when he was Prime Minister, to take stock and reflect on where our community is in relation to the laws of our land.

I want to reflect on a couple of things. I want to reflect on the fact that this country has been built by waves of migrants from all over the world, including me. We are often described as a modern multicultural and open society and a democratic country. There are currently some seven million Australians who were born overseas. There are lots of things that unite us, but the one thing that enshrines our rights almost in law is the Australian Citizenship Act and the fact that we become Australian citizens and as Australian citizens we enjoy the same privileges and have the same obligations.

We have a society that is based on some very strong institutions and laws that protect all of us. The Racial Discrimination Act was put in place over four decades or so ago. Laws passed by this parliament and other parliaments are aimed at ensuring everyone has equality and that we are all protected against things said by others that might be hurtful and offensive or that might degrade us. I understand that very much—and I understand where the member for Cowan was coming from—because I grew up in this country as a foreigner, I became an Australian citizen and now I am in the Australian parliament. I think I represent what the modern contemporary Australian is today, and I am very proud of that. Obviously I am very keen to ensure that nothing interferes with future generations or current generations of people who are working their way through the integration process here in Australia and are becoming Australians.

I have often said to those in particular who are critical of multiculturalism and who argue that it is a divisive thing and we should abandon it—we have sporadic outbreaks of those sorts of debates, and we are having one at the moment; we have had many before in the past, and we will overcome it in the same way that we have overcome it in the past—that multiculturalism for me and for many Australians is really underpinned by these laws. It is also a process by which people become Australians. So it is not a divisive policy; it is 4½ decades of government policy that has over the years enjoyed bipartisanship. There have been times, blips along the way, where there have been critics, but, by and large, there has been bipartisanship on this issue, and I think that that is what underpins the strength of our modern Australian multicultural society.

We have also, in that mix, pursued a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We do not select people on the basis of their race or their colour or their creed or their origin. We do not exclude them, and we do not select them on that basis. We have a non-discriminatory immigration policy.

If I look at the period when the White Australia policy was finally done away with, I see in my electorate in particular the great Turkish-speaking Australian community that was able to finally come to Australia on the abolition of the White Australia policy. I am sure that at the time there would have been people in my community who would have thought that this was not a good thing—that we would not have wanted Turkish migrants in this country, that they would not have been capable of integrating or that they would have been future problem makers. At the time I probably was a very young child, but I am sure that in my neighbourhood in Broadmeadows there were people who would not have wanted the Turks to come to Australia.

But when you reflect—and we are now nearing 50 years of Turkish migration in this country—it cannot be said that, with the abolition of the White Australia policy, which then allowed Turks and other non-Europeans or nonwhites to come to this country, there has been a detriment to the Australian community. On the contrary, my community have made a great contribution, and they are continuing to make a great contribution as Australians of Turkish descent and as Australians of the Muslim faith. So the idea that at some point in time we reflect and we say, 'We shouldn't have let those people in because there are some problems today,' really puzzles me and concerns me. I will come to that a little bit later.

The 17 per cent or so of my constituents who are of the Muslim faith do come also from Lebanon. I have many of them in my electorate who are actually very good Australian citizens and who are making, as I said, a very good contribution as Australians to this country.

In addition to that, I am also very pleased that we are to welcome a very large number of Iraqi Christians—in fact, the biggest number of Iraqi Christians to come to this country in Victoria are living in the federal seat of Calwell. They have come to live here under the refugee program. I have spent a lot of my time interacting with them in trying to assist them and teach them about the Australian community that they have come to live in. And, yes, many of them come here with preconceived ideas and views about people of the Muslim faith. I can understand that. They have come out of the Middle East. They still have family who are being persecuted.

But I have found that this is important to me as their federal member: rather than use that concern and fear that they have and stir my community, I realise it is absolutely critical that the leadership that I show in my local community is to ensure that I help them through a process of settling and integrating into Australia that helps them to have a positive experience. So I am very, very critical of anyone who chooses to hijack this debate and turn it into a political attack on other people. I am worried about the rise of a particular attitude in our Australian community and in this place because it has now found a political voice. I am very worried that succumbing to that attitude is going to be detrimental to the Australian community. The biggest threat to Australia's security or social cohesion is not where people are born; it is rather the racism that often finds expression in this country and the failure of leadership to reject it.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the resumption of debate on the motion of the Prime Minister to recognise equal rights for all Australians. As the Prime Minister noted, 50 years ago Australia became an early signatory to one of the world's most profound declarations on human rights: the United Nations' International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. As many of my colleagues have done already when speaking on this motion, I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to the common values that I believe in and that I believe make our nation great. It is a commitment to the values which ensure that, regardless of who you are, where you are from, your ethnicity, the colour of your skin, your chosen faith or your ability, no Australian should be denied equal opportunity. This is something that I and many Australians strive towards on a daily basis. This motion, which is of great importance to our society, clearly outlines the values of many Australians who support the importance of equal rights for every Australian, including being treated with respect regardless of ethnicity, colour, creed, origin or any other factor.

This motion reaffirms our commitment to maintain Australia as a culturally diverse and open society united by an overriding commitment to our nation and its democratic institutions and values. The values recognised in this motion are common amongst many Australians—for example, notions of freedom which our ADF have fought for over a long period of time. Regardless of their individual background, ethnicity or location in Australia, each migrant who comes here to call Australia home is, in many cases, trying to achieve success for themselves and their families.

Before I came into this place, I worked as an international lawyer through the UN at the Kosovo Property Agency in the former Yugoslavia, resolving claims for people who had lost possession of their properties due to the 1998-99 conflict. In Kosovo, there were about 43,000 claims for farms, for houses and for businesses—by people who were refugees or internally displaced people, or others. We presented nearly 800 cases before an international tribunal every two months. This work assisted individuals and families who had become victims of a situation in which they were not given equal rights or opportunities in terms of the conflict. At the same time, this process of property resolution also enables that nation to move forward. For example, if you wish to invest in Kosovo, you want to know that the property you are purchasing is actually owned by the person who purports to own it. Not only is this resolution process helping people to return to their properties, sell their properties or rent their properties, it enables the country to move forward in investing in their future.

Using what I learned during this time, part of the importance of my work now as a member of the Australian parliament is that I can be a voice for others and contribute to the continued success of our country. We can uphold what so many in our history have worked towards and ensure that we are part of society which celebrates and values the diversity of our people and the rights of all to have equal opportunities. I, like many Australians, believe in the value of equality for all. In my maiden speech, I spoke about why I am a Liberal. I mentioned that I am a Liberal because I believe in equality of opportunity and reward for effort. All people, irrespective of background, deserve a fair go to achieve their best. I focused on this as my own family, like many in our country, came from humble beginnings and would not have been able to succeed if our people and society did not uphold the value of equal opportunity for all.

My wife, Grace, originally came from South Korea and moved to Australia with her family when she was three years old. Australia opened the door for her as well as many other migrants from South Korea. Many South Korean migrants have been very successful in Australia in both integrating into Australian society and achieving success. I am proud that I am able to share in my family that experience with my wife, Grace. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, she experienced the detriments of communism in North Korea when her great-grandparents were unfortunately killed by being thrown alive into a well under the communist regime. Fortunately, her family on one side were able to make it out of North Korea before the borders closed and then she had the opportunity later to move to Australia.

South Korea is recognised in my electorate as well with an increase in South Korean migrants locally. I was able to open recently the first South Korean restaurant in Dunkley, which is called Geonbae, which means 'cheers'. We are proud as a nation to have common values supported by all Australians, such as the importance of a fair go for all. Like my family, Dunkley locals are hardworking and aspirational, wanting the best for themselves and their families. That is why I believe in equality of opportunity. My electorate of Dunkley is full of people from vibrant cultural backgrounds and faiths. The make-up of Dunkley has a majority who were born in Australia. However, we also have a significant population of people who were born in England, New Zealand, Scotland, Germany, India, the Netherlands, South Africa, Italy, China, Ireland, the Philippines, the United States of America, Greece, Poland and more, as well as many whose parents also came from these nations.

In September this year I had the privilege of hosting Senator the Honourable Arthur Sinodinos, the cabinet secretary, to my electorate. A part of Senator Sinodinos's visit to Frankston included meeting with the Frankston Greek Senior Citizens Club—a fantastic group of people who have made our community their home. Some made the Frankston community their home several generations ago and others in recent years. The fact that our society supports the rights of all Australians to enjoy equal rights and be treated with respect, regardless of ethnicity, colour, creed or origin, means that I was able to hear so many success stories from the members of the Greek senior citizens, many of whom came to Australia with very little but were able to make the most of the opportunities our community had to offer, while also contributing to and giving back to the community in many ways, which we hope that all migrants to our country can do. The Australian way of ensuring equality of opportunity for all and a fair go has meant that Australia is full of vibrant, culturally diverse communities—something which has made our country and communities so much greater.

Another example in my local electorate of Dunkley is the Ahmadiyyan Muslim community, with their mosque in Langwarrin. The Ahmadiyyan Muslim community is a part of the overall Islamic faith and in many Islamic countries is persecuted. Many have sought refuge in Australia and in many other countries around the world. They are an example of a community which has integrated locally in my electorate and is presenting a message which preaches love instead of hate.

We have a proud history as an immigration nation. Each year over 200,000 immigrants, as well as over 18,000 refugees and people coming through the humanitarian program, make Australia their home. That makes nearly 220,000 people, which is nearly one per cent of Australia's population, each year. Australia should be proud of its generous contribution in the world in settling migrants and refugees and others, particularly in terms of our settlement services and our ability to integrate people into Australian society. We must continue to show order and continue to improve our settlement processes through our immigration programs and our actions recently through the great work of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, and assistant minister, Alex Hawke. If we control our borders and ensure an orderly process, that enables trust by the Australian people in our processes, which can increase generosity towards both migrants and refugees. This assists with further settlement into the future, in terms of settling those refugees and migrants, and we can continue to improve our settlement and other processes.

The ADF also do a great job, not only in Australia but around the world, in terms of preventing conflict at its source and in terms of protecting the freedoms that we all take for granted. This is part of our global efforts to stem the tide of those seeking refuge elsewhere. We currently have the largest population of refugees and internally displaced people around the world of more than 65 million people, which is greater than after World War II. We all have a responsibility, not only in Australia but in other countries, to enable the settlement of these people and to help resolve the issue.

I am proud as an Australian and as part of this parliament to support equality of opportunity, and I commend the Prime Minister's speech and this motion to the chamber.

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

This year marks the 41st anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act, one of the great legacies of the Whitlam government. Passed in 1975, the Racial Discrimination Act makes it an offence to discriminate against a person because of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, or immigrant status. The act, of course, gave effect to some of Australia's international obligations under CERD, the Covenant for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, and under the ICCPR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Diversity is what makes Australia great. We do not merely tolerate or accept multiculturalism; we welcome and embrace it. Every new community that has come to this wide brown land of ours has added its own unique culture to the great multicultural fabric that is modern Australia. This diversity makes our great country stronger. It offers all Australians the chance to learn about the customs and traditions of others, making us all wiser and more civilised as a result. I cannot imagine an Australia that is not the multicultural community that it is today, because this is what we have become over the many decades of successive waves of immigration to our country. The multiplicity of cultures that we see around us, particularly in our great cities, makes Australia an extraordinarily distinctive culture. Very, very few countries in the world can boast of the multicultural diversity that we have in our country.

I welcome the Prime Minister's words in this House about his commitment to an immigration policy which is wholly non-discriminatory on the grounds of race, colour, creed or origin. I also welcome the Prime Minister's denunciation of racial intolerance in any form as being incompatible with the kind of society we are and want to be. I trust that the Prime Minister's words will be followed by swift action in support of the laws and policies that uphold the commitments that are contained in his words, including upholding section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which provides protection for all Australians from being vilified because of their race or ethnic origin. It is exceptionally disappointing that the right-wing fringe of Australian politics, including some coalition MPs, have chosen to renew their attack on a law which has served Australia particularly well in the 21 years that it has been part of our law.

I note that the Prime Minister has yet to respond to a letter written by the Leader of the Opposition inviting him to join all members of the Labor caucus in signing a parliamentarians' code of race and cultural ethics which pledges to discuss racial issues in a truthful and respectful way. This parliamentarians' code of race and cultural ethics is built on a document to very, very similar effect instigated by Senator Margaret Reynolds from Queensland in 1996, signed by very many members of both houses of the Australian parliament by 1998, which was prompted by what was, on any view, an outbreak of racial intolerance that had the potential to threaten the course and conduct of debate in this parliament. It is prompted by the potential for that same outbreak of racial intolerance that this new parliamentarians' code of race and cultural ethics has been brought into existence. I very much hope that the Prime Minister and the members of the joint coalition party room do respond to the invitation that has been extended by the Leader of the Opposition. What the Prime Minister's words in this House should lead to, but have not to date, is a swift denunciation of the member for Dickson's recent derogatory and uninformed comments about communities that came to our country under the Fraser government. The words that he has used when speaking of 'second- and third-generation migrants' demonstrate his ignorance. The children and grandchildren of migrants are not second- and third-generation migrants; they are Australians, and the member for Dickson should recognise that. He should be ashamed, as the immigration minister, of the phrases he has used.

The member for Dickson's other statements, about the supposed immigration mistakes of the Fraser government, are equally ignorant and, of course, divisive. Let me make this entirely clear to the government and to the Australian public: Labor does not think the successive waves of immigration to this great country of ours were a mistake. When I walk down Douglas Street in Noble Park, one of the great multicultural hubs of my electorate, I see the successes of multiculturalism. When I talk to the Vietnamese Australian cafe owner or the Sudanese Australian butcher, I see the opportunities that Australia offers and the diversity and success that multiculturalism brings. When I speak to the Mayor of the City of Greater Dandenong, my friend Jim Memeti, who came to Australia from Albania at the age of two, and who built a successful business while giving his time to his community as a councillor for the last 11 years, I see the success of Australian multiculturalism. All three of these people are dedicated, hardworking people who give their time and their labour to make our great country even better. Nobody who met these people would think that their coming to Australia was a mistake. Each one of them has created jobs for Australians and has contributed in many ways to our community. And everywhere I go in my electorate I see that cultural diversity. People from over 180 nations have made their home in my electorate, and many other electorates in Australia can say exactly the same thing.

What is distinctive about the Australian community, notwithstanding the incredible number of countries across the world from which Australians have come, is the harmony in which that amazing diversity is able to exist. Elected representatives, and in particular ministers in the government of our great country, have a responsibility to set a standard of acceptance and civility for all Australians. I would be greatly saddened if the 'ignorant' and 'alarmist' comments by the member for Dickson—and I am there quoting the former Fraser government minister Ian Macphee—were to be considered acceptable by young and impressionable Australians. We have to be particularly careful to speak in this place with care and compassion, and not with a view to divide and inflame, because, when an elected representative speaks, their words and their beliefs are legitimised by the very fact that an elected representative speaks them. I say again: there is a particular responsibility cast on elected representatives, particularly on ministers, to choose their words with care, and not—and this goes particularly for a minister of immigration in this country—to use words that have the capacity to divide and inflame and excite prejudice. The immigration minister of this country is the last minister who should be using the kind of language that, regrettably, the member for Dickson has used in the last week and, might I say, has gone on using despite the storm of criticism that has rightly erupted over the comments that he made.

Multiculturalism is the success of hope over fear, of opportunity over apprehension and of reaching out instead of staying in. As a proud Labor member and, more importantly, as a proud Australian, I stand here today in defence of multiculturalism, in defence of diversity and in defence of the continued commitment to denounce racial intolerance in any form as incompatible with the kind of society we are and want to be. What we need to hear from the government of our country, not just from the opposition, is the same defence of multiculturalism and diversity. What we need to hear is a sustained rejection of racial intolerance in any form—and not merely on occasions like the occasion of this motion jointly sponsored by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Every time a minister speaks, every time an elected representative speaks, whether within this parliament or without, we need to hear a defence of multiculturalism and diversity.

Instead of attacking the Australian Human Rights Commission the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General need to be defending that statutory agency when it carries out the statutory functions that it is charged to do. Instead of attacking the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act which gives effect to Australia's obligation to outlaw race hate speech, the government should be upholding those provisions. (Time expired)

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion today which has bipartisan support across the parliament. Of course, I follow the member for Isaacs. It is a shame that he has chosen once again to attack the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection like he does so often. The member for Isaacs cannot help but engage in grubby politics in relation to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. He should 'take the 'log out of his own eye' because, in parliament, the member for Isaacs loves to divide, as do a lot of members on the Labor Party side. The question that was put to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection by the Labor Party the other day had as its very purpose to divide, to try and find a weakness, to get the minister to say something that they could exploit politically. That is the truth of the matter. It is absolutely grubby politics from those opposite.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:31 to 16:45

As I was saying before, I was calling out the member for Isaacs for his divisive comments on this issue around the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I know the minister for immigration personally, and he is a very good man who cares deeply about his portfolio and cares deeply about Australian people from all walks of life. He has done a great service to this country in his role. He has saved lives, particularly in relation to stopping people smugglers.

This motion, of course, I do support. That issue was originally raised by the Leader of the Opposition. That was in relation to the fact that there were new One Nation senators in this place. I would have chosen to just ignore that fact. I think we already had strong bipartisan support on this issue. But I do support the motion, which the Leader of the Opposition and of course the Prime Minister have spoken on.

I believe Australia is a great country. It is the greatest country in the world to live in. We have a strong democracy, with freedom of race and religion. As a federal member of parliament, I have had the privilege of participating in many local citizenship ceremonies. It is great to see so many people wanting to move to Australia and embrace Australian citizenship. People want to come here. They want to live here. They want to build their lives here because Australia is a country of opportunity.

When I go to citizenship ceremonies in my electorate, I see how happy they are. People from right around the world, from different races, from different religions, take this pledge, where they say:

From this time forward, under God, 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.

If people become citizens and they mean that pledge and they embrace Australia, we welcome them with open arms. People need, of course, to respect our country and culture, and they do, even if people come from parts of Asia, parts of the Middle East, India or wherever they are from. Yes, of course, they hang on to some of their own traditions and beliefs from where they were born, the food they eat and everything else, but many of them make a big effort to adopt the Australian way of life and to learn and speak English as well. It is very important. They love this country very much.

I think of Manmeet Sharma, an Indian bus driver who was murdered in Brisbane just a couple of weeks ago. I gave a speech on him in this place. He was a bus driver in Brisbane. He had a great work ethic. He worked really hard. He often helped new Indian people settle in to become Australian citizens here. He spoke at local functions in the electorate where he lived, and he sang as well. He was an Indian man—born Indian—who just settled into the Australian way of life and embraced it very much. What happened to him was an absolute tragedy.

I think of the Indian community where I spoke. There is a big Indian community in my electorate, particularly in the southern end. They had a memorial service for Manmeet the other day. They are Aussie people who love this country, and they play a big role in our area here.

In relation to Indigenous people as well, section (3) of the motion is:

(3) reaffirms its commitment to the process of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, in the context of redressing their profound social and economic disadvantage …

We know that a previous Prime Minister, the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, said sorry to the Indigenous people, and that went a long way to reconciliation. We love Indigenous people. I know quite a few. I have a big Indigenous community in the northern part of my electorate, up around Deception Bay, and they play an important role.

There are some great Indigenous Australians who have been succeeding at a high level for a long time. Not all Indigenous people are disadvantaged. I think of our first Indigenous senator in this place, the first Indigenous parliamentarian in the Australian parliament, a Liberal senator from Queensland, the honourable Neville Bonner, who had little formal schooling, leaving school after he attained the third grade, apparently. In 1971, he became the first Aboriginal person to sit in the Commonwealth parliament when he was chosen to fill a vacancy in the Senate caused by the resignation of a Liberal senator for Queensland. Of course, Neville Bonner was returned at subsequent elections, from 1972 right through to 1980. Recently, his niece, Senator Joanna Lindgren, was also elected as a Queensland senator to this place. She is not here now, but she was elected.

Last Thursday, we saw the release of the seventh Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage report from the Productivity Commission. The report found that significant progress has been made across education, health and economic participation. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, 'said the progress was the result of concerted effort across government, but a great deal more needed to be done to address Indigenous disadvantage, including building the evidence of what worked'. He said that 'there are positives to take out of the report', specifically, reducing mortality rates of children, increasing year 12 attainment rates and school participation, and improving Indigenous employment rates and that 'this is good news and should be celebrated'. As the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, coalition minister Nigel Scullion, said:

The progress we have made in these areas is a positive development and critical to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage, but … there is … more to be done.

He praised all levels of government and different governments for their help.

Of course, unless you are an Indigenous person, you came to Australia as a migrant or are a descendant of immigrants. We are a multicultural society. This is the foundation Australia was built on, and this does make Australia great. We have all benefited from it, and we all embrace it, whether it is eating out at Thai, Chinese, Indian—whatever it is, we are happy to embrace it.

I want to talk quickly about the Asian work ethic because I know that Asians are some of the most hardworking people around. In my business, some of my customers ran Vietnamese bakeries, and these men and women used to come in at three o'clock in the morning to start their bakery and would not leave until eight o'clock at night. This went on seven days a week. I said to a guy I know, Tran, who runs the bakery at Banyo, 'When was the last time you had a holiday?' and he said, 'Five years ago.' These people have a wonderful work ethic, and they really do make a big difference.

I remember that in primary school, in years 2 and 3 at St Flannan's at Zillmere, there were a couple of brothers, Fretz and Jonathan. They were from the Philippines. They were very well respected by our classmates. When I trained in judo from the age of seven right through to my early 20s, I represented Queensland with a good friend of mine, a guy called Jason Gavin, whose mum was Malaysian. I mention that because, as a man in my 40s, I have grown up in a multicultural society, and we never looked upon these people that I grew up with as anything different than Aussies. Yes, they might have been born in a different country, but they were Australians. We are a country of opportunity, and, for anyone who wishes to make their mark in the story of Australia, we welcome them. I support the motion.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important motion, and it is good to see members of the government add their names to the list to show their support for the words that have been moved in the House. It is a very important reminder at this time in Australian politics that this House recommits to equal rights for all Australians and reaffirms its support for all Australians to enjoy equal rights and to be treated with respect regardless of race, colour, creed or origin.

I know that a number of MPs have stood in this place and said that one of the joys of being a federal member is being able to participate in citizenship ceremonies, and I too would like to add my voice to that call. We in the City of Greater Bendigo have had just over 280 people in our area take the pledge to become new Australian citizens. I know that that is not as many as in other electorates around the country. I know that in some electorates there are that many at every citizenship ceremony. But in Bendigo that is the number of people we were proud to celebrate taking the step to become Australian citizens.

They have come from many countries to make Australia and Bendigo their home. We have asylum seekers and refugees from Myanmar. We have a number of skilled migrants from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India. We also have a number of people who have lived in Australia for a very long time but only recently decided, even though they identify as Australian, to take that step to become Australian citizens—people from New Zealand, the UK and the Netherlands.

In our part of the world we celebrate this event. It is always covered by the local media. There is always joy. There is a lot of nervousness. People are encouraged to wear dress from their original country at the citizenship ceremony. We hold these ceremonies not just in Bendigo; we also hold these ceremonies in the Macedon Ranges and Mount Alexander but less frequently than in Bendigo. It is a way that we in our community celebrate and acknowledge our diversity. It is important that we in this place reflect and respect that diversity not just when we speak in citizenship ceremonies but every day that we are members of parliament.

When I get the great privilege to speak at these events—in fact, at any event in our community where we celebrate our diversity and the many cultures that make up the Australian culture—I talk about how Australia is a rich tapestry of many cultures woven together to form the Australian culture. We do that through the traditional way—through food, music and sharing stories. We always encourage each other to share our stories and our journeys because that is the true Australian culture—many cultures woven together.

Unfortunately, in Bendigo in the last few years we have had a few people invade our town and suggest that we are not a multicultural community, that we are not diverse and that we do not celebrate our diversity. The City of Greater Bendigo just over two years ago quite proudly approved the first application to build our city's first mosque. We have a growing Muslim Australian community in Bendigo and they did not have a place of their own in which to worship. They put forward plans to build a community centre that contained a small mosque.

Unfortunately, the United Patriots Front, Reclaim Australia and a few other groups boarded trains to Bendigo and drove to Bendigo to protest against the building of the first mosque. These people were outrageous and at times violent. The United Patriots Front staged a mock beheading of a dummy out the front of the Bendigo city chambers. They posted this on Facebook. Whilst many community leaders and political leaders, people like me, condemned the video at the time, we really struggled to get Facebook to take down the video. This goes to the role of social media in this space. We note what happened recently in the United States.

I hope that Facebook takes these concerns seriously because the people involved in this incident have since been charged by Victorian Police for serious religious vilification. We welcome that because it is very important that people in Bendigo and in Australia are not subject to the kind of vilification that this group have been pushing for. They say that people who practise the Muslim faith are not Australians. They are wrong. They say people who pray in mosques are not Australians. They are wrong. It says very clearly in our Constitution, very clearly in a number of our federal laws, that people are free in this country to practise their religion. That is one of the reasons I want to speak to this motion, to reiterate my strong support for maintaining respect within this place.

Whilst this group's actions have been broadly condemned by many in politics, you can see how these groups do not see what they are doing is wrong when they are being encouraged by comments that are made by our immigration minister. His words in question time sent alarm bells and shock waves through our community, and it was not just in question time but also during the recent federal election. When the immigration minister said that refugees are clogging up our Medicare system, clogging up our unemployment system and taking Australian jobs in the way that he did, he did it purely and simply to incite fear and push people's buttons within our community. He is not being inclusive, he is not respecting our rules and he is not respecting the fact that we celebrate diversity and migration in our country. This week he also spoke about Australians who have Lebanese heritage.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the way political leaders and members of parliament have taken to Twitter to tell the immigration minister why he should be sacked and to also tell him about their history. I would like to acknowledge Jackie Trad, the Deputy Premier of Queensland; Marlene Kairouz, a member of parliament in Victoria; and Steve Bracks, the former and much-loved Premier of Victoria—who all say they are proud Lebanese Australians. But let's make it clear: they are Australians with Lebanese heritage. My parents are from England, but I do not go around saying that I am a proud English Australian. I say that I am Australian with parents who were born in England. It is the same for these three celebrated MPs—they are Australians with Lebanese heritage.

Migrants built our country; it is the history of who we are. It is important that all of us always practise that when we stand and make comments, that we are being true to that; that we reaffirm our commitment to maintaining a migration policy that is wholly non-discriminatory on grounds of race, colour, creed or origin. I want to see the immigration minister recommit to that, a value that for so long has been bipartisan but just this week we have seen him tear that up and go for the cheap political shots. He should be ashamed and apologise for his comments. He is saying these things to invoke fear and division in our community and that is something we should never accept in this place or the other place.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to support this motion put by the Prime Minister today. Equality before the law is one of the fundamental pillars of our liberal democracy and one that I certainly support and hope that all members in this place and the other do as well. Hailing from South Australia, I am conscious of the nature of my state's founding, 180 years ago this year. I attended our Proclamation Day ceremony at Glenelg on 28 December last year and I thoroughly commend it to all South Australians and indeed anyone visiting my home state over Christmas. As a free settled state, the only one in the nation, as we like to proudly remind everybody else, and a place that was to be the embodiment of the best qualities that British society had to offer—economic freedom and prosperity, freedom of association and the right to be free from religious persecution—I am a very proud South Australia. This is important because freedom, I believe, is a most thorough and capable instrument that we may use to achieve equality.

South Australia was founded as a utopia for free settlers. It was home to many who were fleeing religious persecution from Prussia. Lutherans settled in and around the Adelaide Hills and the Barossa Valley, and wrote one of the first of many chapters in Australia's colourful and successful multicultural history. We have German migrants to thank for so much of our wonderful wine and food. It must also be highlighted that South Australia's proclamation was the only proclamation in the nation which included safeguards for Aboriginal Australians and their descendants, and thus proclaimed rights—albeit, rudimentary—for our First Australians. Closer to home for me, South Australia was also the first jurisdiction in Australia to legislate for women's suffrage and the only state to grant women the right to vote and to stand for parliament at the same time.

I mentioned that part of what we offered in South Australia was economic freedom and prosperity, and there is no greater tool to achieve equality than through freedom. One of our best examples of this was under the leadership of Sir Thomas Playford. Throughout the post-World War II migration era, South Australia's population exploded with non-English-speaking migrants, who have made a wonderful contribution to our state. Their inclusion in South Australia's life and community was facilitated by the demand for workers to work in the factories and in our economy at the time. These industrious migrants and their children have achieved equality and integrated properly into Australian life, and the credit must go to the principles of the Liberal democracy that my state and our nation were founded on.

Half a century later, and Australia is still a place of refuge for those fleeing persecution. While the world is a far more complex place now, and our immigration practices have needed to keep pace, the principles of providing refuge to those who need it remain the same and are stronger than ever. Australia's humanitarian program is global and non-discriminatory. Last financial year, the government's refugee and humanitarian program delivered a total of 17,555 places, which included 15,552 offshore places. This is the largest offshore intake in more than 30 years. The number of special humanitarian program places, visas for families of Australians in refugee-like situations offshore, has grown from 503 places in 2012-13 to 7,268 places in 2015-16. At the same time, the number of illegal maritime arrivals taking place under the program has fallen from 4,994 in the last period of Labor to one in 2015-16. Australia's annual refugee and humanitarian program will grow to 18,750 by 2018-19, one of the most generous permanent resettlement programs in the world. The coordinated efforts of the Australian government agencies and international partners have led to a steady flow of visa grants to Syrians and Iraqis from Australia's annual humanitarian program, an additional 12,000 humanitarian places. As a result, the number of Syrian and Iraqi humanitarian entrants arriving in Australia has also increased. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Department of Social Services continue to work in close cooperation to ensure that post-arrival settlement services and supports are in place to assist people as they arrive in Australia.

It is important to note that we could not afford to be as generous in our refugee intake had we not managed to get our borders under control. Unfortunately, due to the failed Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments, our nation completely lost control of our borders and we incurred billions of dollars of spending. There was something like an $11 billion budget blowout as a result of this. Far worse than any monetary impact was the loss of 1,200 lives at sea. The moment I realised how crucial it was to have our borders under control was when I saw the footage, in 2010, of the 50 people who drowned in very rough seas off Christmas Island. Having grown up on the coast, along a coastline pretty similar to that of Christmas Island, it was one of the most devastating things I have ever seen. We cannot allow it to happen ever again; we just cannot.

The results of stronger borders are clear: in the last six years of the Howard government, for example, just 288 illegal immigrants made it to Australia by boat. In the six years of Labor and the Greens, 50,000 people flooded in via 800 successful people-smuggling ventures, and, as I have mentioned, 1,200 people were tragically lost at sea. I am very proud to say that, under the coalition government's policies, no boats have arrived in Australia for 840 days. There are no children in detention. That number is down from 8,000 children who were held in detention under Labor's policies. There have been 17 detention centres closed. This means that we can now take more refugees from refugee camps who have been waiting patiently for a better life here in our wonderful country. We have been able to assist those refugees from Iraq and Syria.

I think it is very important to note that our migration program does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion. The purpose of migration is to build the economy, shape society, support the labour market, reunite families and provide protection in accordance with Australia's protection obligations. The contribution of migrants to Australian society, culture and prosperity has been an important factor in shaping our nation. I hope that everyone in this place and the other place are acutely aware that we were all migrants once. My earliest South Australian forebears arrived in my home state in 1838—two years after settlement. They did their small part to help build South Australia's economy and community, as migrants do every single day.

Today, our migration program is designed to meet Australia's economic and social needs. It includes the skilled stream, the family stream and the special eligibility stream, along with the humanitarian component for refugees and others in humanitarian need. The size and composition of the permanent migration program is flexible and changes over time. It has changed from a smaller program with mostly family migrants in 1993-94 to a larger program with more skilled migrants in recent years. In recent years, roughly two-thirds of people migrating to Australia were skilled migrants and about one-third were from family visa streams. The total migration program outcome for 2014-15 was approximately 190,000 places, compared to 62,800 in 1993-94. In recent years, the major source countries in the migration program have been India, China and the United Kingdom. We welcome all of these migrants.

I am sure everyone in this place would join with me in saying that one of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is going to citizenship ceremonies, welcoming new people into our communities and acknowledging the very rich contribution that our new citizens make to our culture and that our migrants have made to our culture and our community over the years. I again commend the Prime Minister's motion. I congratulate the Prime Minister and our current and former ministers for immigration for the work that they have done, particularly in securing our borders and making sure no lives are ever again lost at sea as a result of a government policy in this country.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to echo the words of the member for Boothby in relation to the incredible success that we have had in stopping the boats and the humanitarian aspect of that—saving lives at sea. We know that we still have a lot of work to do in this area. We can see that, sometimes, in these worldwide crises, we move the issue from our local oceans to the Mediterranean. We still have a worldwide issue, and we have a lot of work that needs to be done. However, it is great to see that we were able to work through this very complex issue. Everybody knows that, as soon as Australia blinks in relation to relaxing the current laws, the people smugglers will seize every opportunity to kickstart their industry once again. The better a job we do in protecting our borders, the more humanitarian and generous our legal intake of refugees can be.

It was with great pride that I had the opportunity to speak on the Prime Minister's motion about the right of all Australians to enjoy equal rights and be treated with equal respect regardless of race, colour, creed or origin—and you can throw religion in there or whatever. Certainly, we are all privileged to live in this country. Only once people have travelled overseas does the real benefit of growing up in a country like Australia hit home. To have so many freedoms—to not have to worry about being attacked on the way to school, to not have to worry about being treated as a second-class citizen— is something we take for granted in this country.

We also need to look very carefully at our Indigenous peoples because we have not brought them along in the same way that other countries have been able to do. You need only look across to New Zealand; they seem to have been able to bring their Maori population along in a different way from what we have been able to do with our Indigenous peoples. Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley has a very strong cohort of Indigenous people, and there are some significant issues in this area as well. I am lucky to have very good relationships with Aboriginal community leaders, who are able to enunciate a very clear vision for their people and have created so many positive initiatives within the Goulburn Valley and the Shepparton region. It is incredibly important that we continue to work with our Aboriginal communities to make sure that they are given every opportunity to pick up the education that most of us take for granted and to look at how we can give them employment opportunities that will change their lives, if we are able to do that.

Today I had the great pleasure of hosting my friend Kevin Sheedy, who was up here spruiking the benefits of a country round of football for next year. Every time you get Kevin Sheedy on his own, he wants to talk about the Indigenous players that he was able to nurture, teach and encourage—and they repaid him in spades with brilliant football and brilliant careers. He was certainly able to increase the profile of Indigenous Australians within the sport of Australian rules football. Prior to Kevin Sheedy coming in as a coach in the eighties, we might have had 30 or 40 Indigenous AFL players. But within a short 20 years we have now had over 350 Indigenous AFL players—and they continue to bedazzle all of us. Again, that was just one man's passion to bring out their absolute talents.

Getting back to the Murray electorate and, in particular, the Goulburn Valley, it has always had a diverse multicultural break-up and mix. Growing up there as a school child, I had friends from every different European country. It did not matter whether they were Greeks, Italians, Macedonians or Albanians. Many people from European countries who migrated to Australia after the Second World War came directly to Shepparton. They gave Shepparton a very multicultural feel, even before any of us knew what the word 'multicultural' meant. That sense has continued to grow; in fact, it is changed quite significantly. We still have all of those populations but in recent years we have had increased numbers arriving from Malaysia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. With the break-up of Yugoslavia, we had more and more arrivals from those European areas. And in recent years we have people had come from a range of Arabic speaking countries. There are Iraqis and there are a lot of Afghanis who are trying to find their way in Shepparton.

On a very serious note, Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley have done an awful lot of heavy lifting in relation to resettling refugees. Governments need to be very careful when they think that they can just plonk people in certain areas because there seem to be a lot of other immigrants and refugees in those areas, it all looks good and we will talk about it in such a positive light. To a large degree it is positive, but what we need to be very careful of is the issue called secondary migration. When we bring refugees into Australia we put a cohort of support structures around them, with language skills, housing support and employment support—there is a whole range—but, when those refugees migrate out of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne and decide they want to make Shepparton their home, the secondary migration takes place without the associated supports. That is where Shepparton is at the moment. We have had so much secondary migration. People have moved to the regions because it is cheaper to live there and there is a bigger cohort of refugees of like race, so they feel they can move into those areas and be amongst their own. But we need to be very cognisant of the continued need to put supports around these people. I would like to push the fact that language is a very serious barrier for enabling people to further assimilate into whatever community they want, but it is an incredibly important part of us being able to welcome these people. These people will not come into our community groups, our community clubs and our community organisations if they do not have the confidence generated by being able to speak the language.

When talking about being a great country in relation to this, whilst I am incredibly proud of the government's achievements with our borders, we need to be mindful of the damage that is done to individuals after prolonged periods in refugee camps overseas and in offshore detection. When we bring these people in and we are able to resettle them here, there are still significant issues and support that they need because of the separation from their family, the uncertainty about bridging visas and the uncertainty around temporary protection visas. Whilst I am incredibly proud of our record and what we have achieved, I am also incredibly aware that there is a real cost to dealing with this problem, and that simply means that we have to be very honest about all the associated issues when it comes to refugees being resettled here.

The Goulburn Valley is an amazingly multicultural environment. It is a beautiful place for food. We have beautiful people from beautiful parts of the world making this beautiful food. It is a real awakening when people come to Shepparton. They would not realise that we have all these amazing cultures and amazing opportunities for greater understanding. We have a lot of work to do and we need a lot of support. I am looking forward to the migration committee's work under Jason Wood. We are conducting an inquiry into resettlement. I want to reaffirm the Prime Minister's motion to the House.

Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am absolutely delighted to support this motion by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, today. This motion goes to the very essence of what I stand for. I am so proud to be here supporting this motion as the member for Chisholm, Australia's third most culturally diverse electorate. Australia is the world's most successful multicultural nation on this earth. This is reflected in our celebration and warm embrace of different cultures in community and business life. The contribution of migrants to Australian society, including many in the electorate of Chisholm, is significant to the prosperity and harmonious way in which we celebrate our culture. In any one day in Chisholm—as I said, the third most culturally diverse electorate in Australia—many languages other than English are spoken and many cultural events and traditions are enjoyed, and this all happens in harmony.

The embrace of multiculturalism and equal opportunity is intuitive and formidable under the Turnbull government. Our commitment is to a completely non-discriminatory policy and the rights of all Australians to enjoy equal rights and be treated with equal respect, regardless of race, colour, creed or origin, as is our commitment to the process of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Australia's migration program does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

In recent years the major source countries in our program have been India, China and the United Kingdom. Australia is an immigration nation and we should all be very proud and, indeed, as in the words of our national anthem, we should 'all rejoice'. Today, almost half of us have a parent born overseas and more than a quarter of Australians were born overseas themselves. We are much more diverse than the United States.

Since 1949 more than 7½ million people have come from all corners of the earth to make Australia their home. Migrants from all over the world, including our newest Australians, have arrived under a broad range of visas—as skilled migrants nominated by employers, as refugees, as humanitarian entrants, as partners, as carers, as business owners, as regional skilled migrants, as people of distinguished talent, as parents, as children and as students. Each one brings a rich personal history that we have welcomed into our community. At the time that they formalise their commitment to our country, our values and our rule of law, they start their journey in Australia.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of when Australia became an early signatory to the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is a treaty that goes directly to a basic principle of respect for each other as fellow human beings and respect for each other regardless of race, colour or ethnicity.

It is always important to reflect on history and see how far we have come as a nation. In 1966 that treaty was signed by the Liberal Prime Minister Harold Holt. Only months earlier the Holt government made significant changes to our migration laws, dismantling all laws allowing discrimination against migrants on the grounds of colour or race.

In May 1967 Australians overwhelmingly voted to amend the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians—a process that was begun under the Sir Robert Menzies government and was completed under the leadership of Harold Holt. These decisions under the Menzies and Holt governments removed the White Australia policy and embraced all the new and exciting opportunities for our country, which were underpinned by the people who came from far and wide. They sought to end discrimination, celebrating and reaffirming the Australian values of mutual respect regardless of ethnicity, race, colour or creed.

Central to our democracy is the rule of law. The rule of law is empowering and constraining as it applies to every citizen and protects every citizen regardless of race, colour, gender or status. But harmony and security are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are intrinsically linked. To this, I discuss Labor's border failures, which are, in my view, Labor's greatest shame. Under Labor the criminal people-smuggling syndicates flourished. Eight hundred boats arrived, 50,000 people arrived and 2,000 children were in detention, and the greatest shame of all is that 1,200 people died.

Under the Turnbull government we have not had one boat arrival, no deaths at sea, we closed the detention centres and there are no children in detention. The Turnbull government's work in relation to border protection and securing our shores is lauded and praised around the world. Moreover, the fact that we have our borders under control is what has created our dividend to bring in refugees—those most vulnerable from Syria and other parts of the world. A total of just under 19,000 refugees have come to Australia recently as a result of our measured, controlled approach.

Our proud migrant story has many chapters and is told in the waves of people who have come to our shores, and many of their stories are about their immigrant experience, stories and heritage. Last week I had the honour and privilege of presenting Australian citizenship certificates to many new citizens who have made Australia their home and who live in my electorate of Chisholm. In their pledge of citizenship they promise loyalty to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs they share, whose rights and liberties they respect and whose laws they will uphold and obey. It gave me so much pride and heartfelt warmth to have this honour of officially welcoming people and congratulating them in joining our great nation, and to share this moment with them. The looks on many of their faces and the pure joy that was in that room as I handed their certificates was joyful. My parents and ancestors, like many—including the many in my electorate of Chisholm—have come, in the words of our national anthem, 'across the seas' and 'toiled with hearts and hands'. New citizens have come from the United Kingdom, China, India, Greece, Italy, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Korea, Taiwan, Ireland, Mauritius, the Philippines, and Malaysia. All those new citizens who attended the ceremony, like all those before them, have so many stories to share. But the one thing we all have in common is that we are able as 'Australians all' to rejoice—because this is the most successful multicultural nation on this earth.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion today, and I thank the Prime Minister for introducing it. This motion outlines one of the most fundamental principles of Australian society: that an individual should be judged according to their character, their ideas, their actions and their deeds, and not their race, colour, creed or origin. It is a particular honour to be the member for Berowra and to speak on this particular motion, because of my illustrious predecessor, Phillip Ruddock, who served as member for Berowra for 23 years but served the Commonwealth parliament for 43 years; our second-longest serving member of the House of Representatives ever. It is particularly good to be speaking to this motion here where my friend, the member for Bennelong who—like the member for Berowra—has been a great champion of multiculturalism in Australia.

One of the things about my predecessor—and this motion gives me an opportunity to pay some tribute to him—was his very strong connections with multicultural communities, along with his very deep interest in the diversity of Australia, and the nation-building that he sought to do throughout his political career. Phillip Ruddock's interest in multiculturalism goes back to the time in the early 1980s when he was shadow minister for multiculturalism. He was asked to produce a policy on multiculturalism, initially for the ACT, and became interested in getting to know some of the community leaders around the country. Phillip famously put his political career in the firing line, as it were, when in 1988 he crossed the floor to support Australia having a race-blind migration policy. I think, of the many important things he did in his career, this was actually the most important. This is a principle which is reflected in the motion today, but I think it is actually a fundamental principle of who we are as Australians. It was very important to the making of Phillip Ruddock, in terms of his political career—not just as a very good local member and as someone who could forge a policy agenda but as somebody who stood for something that was very deep and very important. I really pay tribute to him for that.

Philip was also our longest-serving minister for immigration, and he enjoyed that portfolio; he was also minister for Indigenous affairs, and that portfolio is also encompassed by some aspects of this motion. Phillip saw his role in the immigration portfolio as building the nation. Some people see the immigration portfolio as merely a border protection portfolio, but that was not how Phillip saw it. He saw it as both choosing the next generation of people to be Australians, and welcoming them, ensuring that they had good settlement services and ensuring that they became and felt part of the broader community. Having observed Phillip closely, I think that being immigration minister was something that left its mark on him. But it was also, undoubtedly, one of the most difficult policy areas imaginable. It was difficult because he had to make some tough decisions about Australia. He had to make some tough decisions about border protection when large numbers of boats came—and I think every immigration minister faces those difficult decisions. While I am paying tribute to Phillip, I also want to pay particular tribute to the present immigration minister, Peter Dutton, who has done a fantastic job—as his predecessor, Scott Morrison, did—in ensuring that we have public confidence in the migration program by ensuring that people continue to come to Australia in an orderly manner; that we do not have the deaths at sea; that we do not have 50,000 people turning up on our doorstep; and that we do not have the large number of people in detention that existed under the previous government. The success of multiculturalism in Australia today is really founded on the issue of public confidence. That was something that both Phillip Ruddock and Peter Dutton have stressed in their contributions to the public debate on this issue. Diversity is the goal. Diversity is fundamental to who we are, but you cannot have public support for diversity unless you have public confidence that we have an orderly system to bring people in.

For me, the right to equality and the idea of a race-blind immigration policy is absolutely axiomatic. I am very proud to have been the first Jewish Australian chosen by my party from New South Wales to serve in the House of Representatives. It is an interesting fact that in the first Commonwealth parliament the people of Indi in northern Victoria chose Isaac Alfred Isaacs, one of the framers of the Constitution and later Chief Justice and Governor-General, the people of South Australia chose Vaiben Louis Solomon and the people of Fremantle, just out of Perth, chose Elias Solomon. Both Solomons were free traders, and Isaacs was a protectionist. Those two streams formed the modern Liberal Party, but it was another 115 years before my party, or its antecedents, in my state chose somebody of my faith.

Prior to becoming a member of this parliament, I served on the representative body for the Jewish community in New South Wales. I had a particular role as chair of the community relations committee of that body. The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies' community relations committee is absolutely fundamental, because its role is to build harmony and build relationships with other religious communities and other ethnic communities across the state. That is a very important thing in terms of a harmonious multicultural society—not just that you have tolerance and diversity, but that you have people making an effort to share their differences and to celebrate the similarities of what makes us Australian. That was a great privilege for me, because it gave me an opportunity, just as some of my previous work with Philip Ruddock had done, to interact with some of the great community leaders involved in the multicultural space. I particularly think of people like Stepan Kerkyasharian who is, if you like, the godfather of multiculturalism in New South Wales. He served on the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW for many years, he served on what is now the Community Relations Commission as its president for many years, and he served on SBS multicultural radio to help create a sense of inclusion and a sense of multiculturalism across the broader community.

I do not just think of people like Stepan, I think of people like Sev Ozdowski, of people in the Chinese community like Benjamin Chow and Tony Pang, of people in the Indian community like Parveen Gupta and Pallavi Sinha, of Professor Agar and Sanjeev Bhakri from the Hindu Council, and of some of the other amazing people I met along the way. I am very lucky to represent a community that, like the member for Bennelong's electorate, has a great deal of ethnic diversity in it. About 40 per cent of people in my electorate were born overseas, which is consistent with the national population. There are significant Chinese, Indian, Korean, Italian, Lebanese and Malaysian populations in my community. It is that difference and that diversity that brings strength.

One of the things I find whenever I am speaking to people who have chosen to be Australians, who have come from other countries to settle here, is that they have an enormous pride in being Australian. Australians by choice are a great benefit to our country, because, very often, they have left circumstances, regimes and situations that are not as good as they find here. They are grateful and feel fortunate to be here, and they want to see our country prosper, because, if our country prospers, they too shall prosper. That is a great strength of our system.

One of the other aspects of this particular motion is the commitment to reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I thought I might begin by talking a little bit about that. I have been on a real journey in relation to the issue of recognition of Indigenous people in Australia. I must say, at the beginning of my journey I was opposed to any recognition of Indigenous people, not because I do not wish to see Indigenous people prosper and succeed, but because I was deeply concerned about the implications of adding words to the Constitution that might have unforeseen consequences.

Over the last three or four years I have had the privilege of working with a group of Indigenous leaders, people like Noel Pearson, Megan Davis and Marcia Langton, to come up with a suite of proposals which I think will provide a good pathway to achieving reconciliation and recognition of Indigenous people. It involves an extra constitutional declaration of recognition, designed by Australians and voted on by Australians. It involves amending and updating the words in the race power so they reflect and codify current practice and that they change those words for being a power for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. It involves removing the spent provision in section 25 in the Constitution. Finally, it involves creating a body that can provide advice to parliament and advice to government on laws relating to Indigenous people.

As we know, whenever you make a law you make a better quality law when you have consulted the people who are most affected by it. That is why some sort of body that provides a voice for Indigenous people, in the policymaking and law-making process, would be a great advantage. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to reaffirm my commitment to the rights of all Australians to enjoy equal rights and to be treated with equal respect, regardless of race, creed, colour or origin. Equal rights and personal freedom are fundamental ideals of Australian society, fought for by our soldiers in so many theatres of war across the globe. Despite a long proud history of tolerance and acceptance there is still—and always will be—more to do.

While the bare-faced discrimination of the early days of Australian settlement has virtually banished from our society, as we stand here today, there is still more work to be done. As the Prime Minister said in his speech:

Our achievement in creating a harmonious nation is not an accident. It has been carefully crafted, and it must be nurtured. And a necessary precondition for harmony is security.

It is this security that binds our entire society and allows it to be so diverse. Security is easily identified in ways we interact with the rest of the globe.

We have a history, and I think a proud history, of supporting the rights of those who are in peril through military action. In the First World War as a new nation we saw European countries—and it would eventually have led to our own country—under threat by the Germans. Our war started in New Guinea, where the Germans had a pretty strong base in Rabaul and other parts of New Guinea. Our first recorded deaths in World War I were in Rabaul, when five Australian soldiers were killed. But they did achieve what they set out to do: take over the communications that controlled all of the Pacific Islands. We then went on to Gallipoli, North Africa and those dreadful trench wars in France. But it was aggression that helped the Western world and the islands achieve their independence.

The Second World War was similar, with German aggression again, including the extermination of millions of people based on their race. That was sad but we responded to the call. Those people now have the freedom that they longed for back then. They have it to a degree now.

Vietnam was our stance against the spread of communism and people being persecuted. Whether the Vietnam War was one we could have kept out of is up to the individual to make their own mind about, and there are two schools of thought. We thought we were doing the right thing by going in and helping the Vietnamese retain their freedom. With the current Middle Eastern wars, Australia has taken to assisting those whose rights and safety are under siege.

Work continues to this day with the ADF against the scourge of IS. Australians can stand proud in the knowledge that their military tradition has fought for the rights of people when called upon, time after time. That security is also identified in Operation Sovereign Borders. There are two ways to come into Australia as an immigrant or refugee: the legal way and the illegal way. By keeping our borders secure, we take the market away from the criminal human-traffickers, thus allowing a more generous inflow of safe, legitimate, security-checked refugees.

While the media likes to throw doubt at Australian society's acceptance of newcomers, I think the best indicator of our acceptance is just how keen migrant families are to become Australian citizens. All of us in this House attend regular citizenship ceremonies in our different locations. Each month, if I am available, I attend citizenship ceremonies at Gladstone and in other parts of my electorate of Flynn—Emerald and so forth—and I am taken aback by the passion and love that the so-called new Australians have for our community. I think these ceremonies are one of the greatest events you can attend as a politician. You see the expressions on their face change as the words 'You are now an Aussie, mate' are said. I think it is proof of how proud these people are to leave their countries of birth and come to a place called 'Australia'. They had never been here before. Maybe they had some family members who have been here. In essence, they had not been on Australian soil. They are here for the first time and they embrace the nation of Australia.

For the majority of them, all they want to do is become good Aussies, work hard and achieve what they could not achieve in their place of birth. These people often do so in order to escape terrible dangers, and they hope to make a new life in a safe and secure country. By offering them security and safety, we are able to welcome those new Aussies and the new economic windfall that they bring with them. That is where Australia benefits. We need these immigrants, on a regular basis. We are an ageing nation and we need these people to look after people like me when we go into retirement in the next few years. They will replace the baby boomers. They are an essential part of our immigration policy.

This government is committed to equal rights and constitutional acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians. Recognition is overdue, and it is not helped by distracting comments from those opposite about a treaty. I think if we leave things as they are, everything will be fine. Recognition is an important step, but it is improving the life outcomes for all Indigenous Australians that will make a measurable difference to them and to Australia. Through poor health outcomes, Indigenous Australians have a lifespan that is, on average, 10 years shorter than for those in the non-Indigenous population. This is something that all governments must address.

This comes back to safety and security. The Prime Minister was talking about every Australian. Every visitor needs security. By continuing the fight for security and safety this nation and its people will continue to see Australia as a welcoming and sought-after destination. My family, the O'Dowds, came from Ireland in 1949, just before the so-called Great Famine—the potato famine. It was a famine—the potatoes were diseased—but the English, who then ruled Ireland, sought to shut off all the fishing holes and lakes, exported the lamb and beef to England and let 5½ million Irish people die on the streets of Ireland. That is how my family came to Australia—to escape the famine of 1850.

In those days, it was the Catholics against the Protestants. As a young child, I can remember that the Catholics and the Protestants were separated in religious classes in the tiny little schools they used to go to. That is a fact. Trinity College had an interesting story in Dublin. Trinity College is still there. It is a very old school and it was only for the Protestants. For hundreds of years, the Catholics fought to be able to attend Trinity College. When they finally got self-government, in 1920, they were told: 'Okay, you can now go to Trinity College.' The Irish response to that was, 'It's good to know that we can go there, but we don't want to go there now.'

An honourable member: To be sure!

To be sure! With that, I would like to endorse what we are here to talk about, and that is freedom for all, regardless of race, creed, colour or origin. Thank you very much.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, I stand in this chamber as a proud member of a government that throughout our nation's history has supported and respected the tolerance of others no matter what their race, religion or gender and it continues to do so today. I am also proud of the fact that this country is the most successful multicultural society in the world. This is something all Australians should be proud of. If you ask a person in the street what they think defines our Australian culture I am sure the words, 'mateship' and 'getting in and having a go' are likely to be the responses that you will get. In fact that narrative rings true here with this motion today, where both the government and the opposition agree, just like it was 20 years ago when our former Prime Minister, John Howard, and the then opposition leader, Kim Beazley, spoke on this very motion.

It would be remiss of me not to say that this generous, respectful and multicultural Australia has been underpinned by giving our people peace of mind. When I refer to the giving Australians peace of mind I am referring to the efforts we take to ensure that Australia remains a harmonious multicultural society, underpinned by the focus on our country's national security.

I have to say that I am extremely proud to be part of a government focused on the security of our borders and diligently managing our immigration programs. It is our ability to control our borders that enables us to live in a harmonious, well-balanced and multicultural society. We are definitely one of the luckiest countries in the world, and as a member of a functional global society this government recognises the need to do our part. I believe that the people who come to this country by visa, whether as a skilled immigrant, a refugee or as a humanitarian entrant; as partners or carers; as a business owner; as a regional skilled migrant; or as parents, and who agree to respect our country's sovereignty and laws deserve our mateship and an opportunity to contribute. Entry to our country through our humanitarian program—a program that is global and non-discriminatory—provides hope for a better future for people and their families who are displaced by conflict.

This government has committed to settling 12,000 additional humanitarian refugees who have been displaced by enduring conflict in Syria and Iraq. This government will work to ensure that refugees who are welcomed to Australia through our humanitarian program pass imperative security checks and meet health and character criteria. This government will be providing the necessary services to our humanitarian entrants to help them to build a life here in Australia so that they too can become self-reliant and participate equally as members of our Australian society.

My electorate of Maranoa is classified as regional, rural and remote and I would like to talk with the tangible benefits of ensuring that migrants successfully integrate in our regional rural and remote areas. On the ABC's Australian Story two weeks ago we learned firsthand about the benefits of encouraging multicultural integration in the small community town of Mingoola, just over the border in New South Wales—a town that my leader, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, actually represents. This is a town which in many ways is similar to the sum of the towns in my electorate of Maranoa, in the sense that these communities are facing the challenges of a declining population and sustaining their essential services and facilities. Smaller rural communities like Mingoola, and the many communities across Mingoola, while facing challenges are also proud, community-minded and respectful communities, where people are friendly and helpful and care about the future of their town.

Julia Harpham notice the pressure place on the future of Mingoola. It was a problem which almost resulted in the closure of the local Mingoola school. Instead of accepting a sad end, Julia worked to find a solution that would suit her community. In Julia Harpham's words:

You don't like to see a community die. And there's not much joy in a place with no children.

Together the community of Mingoola worked with refugee advocates to facilitate, with the help of this government, to bring refugee families from Central Africa to Mingoola.

Families arriving here as refugees from countries in Central Africa, like Rwanda, often do not want the hustle and bustle of the city. They want a life on the land, to live in smaller communities to which they can contribute and for their children to enjoy a country upbringing. Earlier this year three families relocated to Mingoola, increasing the small rural town's population by 29 and saving the local school from closure. The relocation of these three families has also provided employment opportunities for people with local farmers and alleviated the pressure placed on farmers in the area in attracting a reliable workforce.

By all reports this project is a success for Mingoola and is an example of how Australia's humanitarian program produces good outcomes, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia. This outcome is exactly what the evidence tells us. When we integrate our immigrant population into our rural towns we broadened and revitalise our communities. We have people to utilise our schools and people to take job opportunities that we in rural Australia often find hard to place. Maintaining sustainable populations in our smaller communities means that all levels of government are able to ensure adequate investment in planning, infrastructure, programs and services in the country. In my first speech I spoke about infrastructure being important for unlocking our economic prosperity in Maranoa.

In the three months I have been in this role I have been fortunate to attend two citizenship ceremonies: one in Dalby, at which the community welcomed 21 new citizens, and another at Kingaroy, where 23 citizens joined the South Burnett community. In fact, the citizenship ceremony in Kingaroy was one of the largest held by the South Burnett Regional Council. I watched proudly as our new citizens pledged loyalty to Australia, our people, our democratic beliefs and our rights and liberties and promised to respect and obey our laws. After speaking to some of Maranoa's newest citizens and learning about them, their children and their background I was able to fully appreciate the value of their contribution to the social fabric and the economies of their new regional and rural communities.

Another issue which I have been focusing on in my electorate is the value of our passionate, dedicated and community minded volunteers in helping address community disadvantage, whether that be by reason of unemployment, disability or otherwise. I have been encouraging people to recognise good citizens—the people who donate their time to help others. In preparing my speech on this very important motion I was surprised to learn that, according to Volunteering Australia statistics from 2010, 36.2 per cent of people aged 18 years and over participated in formal volunteering, so roughly about 6.1 million people or 27 per cent of the then 2010 population. Of that amount 1.44 million volunteers were people who were born overseas, and 840,000 of those were people who spoke a language other than English. I think these statistics truly reflect the fact that the opportunity we provide to people through our immigration programs is of benefit to Australia.

I would also like to acknowledge our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who contribute so much towards this country. I am grateful for our First Australians who are now saving lives as doctors, nurses and paramedics, teaching children, working with our unique Australian environment and serving the Australian people here in this place. But I am also cognisant that we must continue our work in bettering the lives and opportunities of our First Australians.

Our government is extremely committed to preserving our First Australians' history. While the Prime Minister was in Birdsville with me last month we met with Jean Barr-Crombie, who through Red Ridge received a grant to publish a book on the Indigenous language unique to outback Birdsville. This grant will ensure that our Indigenous languages survive the years to come and remain an important part of Australia's history.

In closing, what we as a nation have achieved in creating the most functional and harmonious nation on earth is a great achievement but we can never take this for granted and we should be prepared to defend and preserve that achievement at all costs.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:59