Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

I was listening to Senator Roberts and reflecting that, over in the House of Representatives, they have gathered today for a condolence resolution for my friend Peta Murphy. She came from one of Melbourne's great multicultural seats. I would very much have looked forward to what she, had she been here, would have said about the questions that have been in front of us yesterday and today and her reflections on those questions.

But I'm not in there listening to those condolences today; I'm in here talking about this proposition.

The other thing that I was reflecting upon when listening to Senator Roberts is that I do think that what this debate requires is precision. When it's a debate that goes to questions of citizenship, that goes to questions of multiculturalism, that goes to questions of migration, always, in the short term, the noisiest voices are the voices that are heard. But these debates—particularly when they go to questions of national security, citizenship and a range of these topics—require precision. Some of the loudest voices in this debate have no regard for the impact of their words. I say to people in this chamber: particularly if you aspire to be a party of government, you ought to be, on one side of this debate, keenly aware of the impact of your words. I don't say that to argue to get a soft run. There is politics in this, and it is always legitimate for people to pursue political ends. But those ends ought to stop where the national interest intrudes.

I also say to people who are concerned about this set of questions—and I've listened carefully to what Senator McKim and others have said about these questions—it is very important that there is precision here about what this piece of legislation is about and that we do not make wild claims. Whether it's in relation to the legislation that we dealt with yesterday, as the government dealt with the residual issues that flow from the High Court's decision on NZYQ, or the legislation we're dealing with today, where we are dealing with the questions that follow from the High Court's decision in relation to Benbrika et cetera, we should not conflate those issues with the issues of migration and multiculturalism more broadly and with the issues that go to asylum seekers and Australia's humanitarian program. No good will come of that. What is required here is clarity. What is required here is confidence from Australians that these schemes and the government are operating in the national interest.

I say, perhaps at the risk of being completely ignored, that there is a requirement for precision here. There is a requirement for a sober assessment of the national interest. I accept that there will be differences of views. It is possible to take an approach that's bounded by a philosophical view that ends up colliding with the government's set of objectives. Let's just be precise about what it is that we're talking about, and let's be precise about our language. There should be no conditionality where one group of Australians are told by people in the political system that they are somehow less Australian than others. That is the risk that arises from what Senator Roberts just said. I can tell you, as I move around Sydney's great multicultural suburbs, that there is so much to be defended and to be proud of in our great multicultural traditions.

It is also the case that over the course of the last decade there has been a great victory of form over substance. All of the tough words, all of the hot language and all of the declarations of the national interest—what has the last government left this government with? In both of these areas, they have left us with legislation that has been unconstitutional.