Federal Member For Oxley Pauline Hanson

Debate resumed from 16 October.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.11 p.m.]: I am pleased to lead for the Opposition in debate on the motion moved by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, who on the last occasion spoke at length in condemnation of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party. I thank the Hon. I. M. Macdonald for his complimentary remarks about my efforts, commitment and hard work to counteract Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party. However, in saying that I do not support his motion, which I now seek to amend. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting the words "Howard Government’s totally inadequate response to".

Should my amendment be accepted, the motion will read as follows:

That this House condemns the continuing attacks on Australia’s multicultural society by Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.

I am tired of the constant attempts to politicise the race debate. Racism is an issue that crosses all party lines. No matter where one stands on the political spectrum, racism should rise above petty party politics. This is too serious an issue to be used as a political football for the purpose of point scoring. Therefore, I deplore the attempts of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald to politicise the issue.

[Interruption]

By way of interjection the Hon. E. M. Obeid said precisely what I wanted to say. He said that in Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party we have a common enemy; that we should attack the common enemy.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I have not seen the Hon. E. M. Obeid out there fighting Pauline Hanson.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: No, he is too busy with his party politics. In our fight against racism emphasis should be strongly focused on strategies to eradicate racism and to address problems that foster such attitudes. I am sure that the Hon. E. M. Obeid will agree with me. As Bob Ellis said -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Bob Ellis?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes, I realise some people do not like him.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I don’t like him.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: That is okay, I agree. However, Mr Ellis said, "Racism is not just political incorrectness. It is war." I say that we must win this war; we must be victorious. To fight it successfully we need a united, strong, bipartisan approach from all sections of the community rather than just one. The term "eradication" is ambitious but we must not falter in our efforts. Since the recent outbreak of racist attacks and abuse I have been actively involved in the fight against racism. Hanson precipitated this wave of racism by her outrageous allegations Asians and multiculturalism, particularly her claim that "Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians." The fight has been relentless and I have been encouraged to continue by all those in the community who support my efforts and beliefs. The three people of Asian background who are seated in the public gallery today support me in this war.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: We all support you.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Good, I am glad to hear that. As an Asian immigrant, a concerned citizen and a member of Parliament I cannot sit back and watch this woman destroy the very fabric of our nation. Her statements divide our country and destroy its reputation. The debate is not only tearing the very fabric of our nation, it is transforming the way Australia is perceived in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia is now cast as a racist, intolerant and backward country, unwilling to move with the times and become part of the developing global community. Over my entire parliamentary career of almost 10 years I have never had such
Page 1711
concentrated contact with the media as I did after Hanson’s maiden speech.

Realising the adverse outcome of her speech I urged the Prime Minister, and repeatedly urged my Federal and State colleagues on both sides, to stand up and denounce what Hanson said. Many did just that, but much more is needed if we are going to successfully counter the negative image of Australia that has been created. I recognise that a bigger problem than Hanson herself was the Government’s response to her. If we are to successfully counter her, both sides of the political fence must demonstrate to Asia and the world that Hanson represents only a small minority and that all forms of racial discrimination are unacceptable. In this regard the Australian Labor Party has done little to help portray Australia as a country in which everyone is given a fair go. Earlier this year on a visit to Hong Kong I was amazed at the number of people who had heard of Hanson and were aware of what she has said. She was better known to people than our Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs!

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: She is a former Liberal. She was a member of your party.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: But we expelled her. The Hon. E. M. Obeid made a valid point, but I remind him that the Liberal Party expelled Pauline Hanson. People were more concerned about the Government’s response than Hanson per se. Many people would have heard the former Hong Kong member of the Legislative Council, Emily Lau - who is known to the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann - on the television program 60 Minutes in July this year, which showed the extent of Hanson’s visibility in Asia. The regional reactions to her statements show that the Hanson backlash is strongest in Malaysia, with 76 per cent of Kuala Lumpur respondents recognising her name, 28 per cent in Djakarta, 26 per cent in Bangkok and 16 per cent in Manila.

Emily Lau is a formidable lady and is currently visiting Australia. She reported an accurate portrayal of the Asian feeling about Hanson, which was evident during my visit to Hong Kong. Throughout my stay I faced the rhetoric espoused by Hanson and the media. I literally had to convince people that Australia really is a tolerant and harmonious nation and that generally Australians are fair minded. I explained that Pauline Hanson was an Independent backbencher who represented a minority of voters, that it was safe for Asian children to study in Australia and that it was profitable for Asians to do business with Australia.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: She was elected by accident.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes, she was elected circumstantially. Nearly everyone I met expressed concern about Hanson and questioned race relations in Australia. A number of people had lost confidence in migrating to Australia and had doubts about our successful multicultural society. I have not been scared to voice my opposition to her and her supporters, particularly members of her One Nation Party. I have received numerous abusive phone calls and letters and have been intimidated by her supporters and other racists. At the same time I must add that perhaps even more people are supporting and encouraging me.

My fight against racism and those misguided people opposing multiculturalism has taken many forms. It includes many speeches in Parliament that honourable members may remember; motions against racial intolerance; recognising the importance of racial tolerance, maintaining unity, cohesion and harmony; grassroots activities, such as organising antiracism rallies; meeting with ethnic communities; organising celebrations of our cultural diversity; lobbying my parliamentary colleagues to join in the fight against racism; and interviews with local and international media, particularly Asian media, to combat misperceptions of Australia being a racist country. Our image of being a friendly and tolerant society has been tarnished by Hanson and no doubt our reputation has been damaged.

In one of my adjournment debate speeches I informed honourable members that on 22 September I had the privilege of participating in a panel discussion about civil solutions to racial intolerance and discrimination at the inaugural meeting of Racial Respect, which is an organisation set up to dispel the myths and misconceptions that breed racist behaviour and attitudes. In that speech I said that Racial Respect, which is convened by Professor Jamie Mackie, was a fantastic initiative that provided a much-needed forum for constructive debate between like-minded people and for dissemination of factual information to counter misinformation. One great thing about Racial Respect is that it provides positive outlets for people to unite and utilise their energies constructively and positively.

The community has a desperate need for those sorts of healthy positive outlets. In May this year I co-organised a celebration of cultural diversity and Aboriginal reconciliation in Manly with the co-operation of the local member, Dr Peter Macdonald.
Page 1712
The celebration was a great success. Hundreds of people gathered to voice their support for multiculturalism, cultural diversity and Aboriginal reconciliation in a positive spirit. Let us not forget that Manly is the headquarters of the One Nation Party. It was appropriate for us to use that celebration to make a statement to that party. I distinctly remember that the one unique thing about the rally was that it was supported by politicians from all parties. At that stage the Hon. Franca Arena represented the Labor Party.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Who represented the Premier?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: It is interesting that the Premier asked me to represent him at that celebration.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: It was bipartisan.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I agree with the Hon. E. M. Obeid. I had no problem with the Premier asking me to represent him on that particular occasion because it was bipartisan, which is the best way to approach this issue. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. I. Cohen, the local Federal member, Tony Abbott, and local State member, Peter Macdonald, all spoke at this celebration rally.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And the Minister?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I was sick that weekend, or I would have attended. It was a very important occasion.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes it was. You missed a very important occasion to embrace the spirit of the celebration with everyone. The Aboriginal activist, the late Burnum Burnum, was present with other Aboriginal people and he put forward some good points. Everyone at that rally recognised that intolerance of racism rises above party politics. I strongly believe that more positive outlets must be available for people to voice their support for a contemporary multicultural Australia; the Australia we all know and love, which is enriched by its cultural diversity and its cosmopolitan attitude and is moving forward.

That is the reality that all Australians must accept. We cannot turn back the clock. Everyone recognises that the racism debate was started by one Federal member of Parliament who is ignorant and ill-informed. She is only a symptom of a much larger and insidious disease that is bred by insecurity in society and fear of the unknown and unfamiliar. Australia is at a crucial point in its history. We cannot afford to have opportunities, both abroad and at home, destroyed by turning our back on the world. Although Hanson’s impact on Australia may not show up in next month’s trade figures, there is little doubt that she threatens our long-term commercial interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

Asia is not only home to 60 per cent of the world’s population but a key export market for Australia and an important source of growth for our economy. Our Treasurer and Minister for State and Regional Development has acknowledged that point in this Chamber many times. Pauline Hanson has affected our relationship with Asia in many ways. She has damaged Australia’s contemporary image as a welcoming and friendly nation. The memory of the White Australia policy was beginning to fade when Hanson brought it back into full focus and colour. The racist revival is having a detrimental effect on our international image and on our business, trade and industries.

As pointed out by Peter Hatcher, the Asia-Pacific editor of the Financial Review, on 5 June 1997, Hanson’s agenda is cutting into business meetings and discussions, destroying opportunities to sell, persuade and negotiate, and providing Asian negotiators with an excuse to toughen their contract terms. In this way Hanson is cutting into trade and patterns of business and diplomacy. A McNair-Anderson poll on 21 July conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that 16 per cent of business leaders in Asia were aware of Hanson’s views and were less likely to do business with Australian companies.

Tourism is our country’s biggest growth industry. In 1996 it generated $16.1 billion, an increase of 14.2 per cent over 1995. But, unfortunately, tourism has suffered because of Hanson. According to the tourism task force chief executive, Christopher Brown, the widespread concern in Asia about Hanson’s antiAsian immigration stance has still not receded, contrary to what was expected. Eighty-six per cent of Australia’s tourism industry leaders believe that Hanson’s high public profile is hurting their businesses, undermining the $20 million a year we spend in Asia advertising and marketing Australia as a tourist destination.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I’m sure that’s true.

Page 1713

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: It is true, but what a waste. The number of Japanese visitors to the Gold Coast between January and May this year fell by 27 per cent compared with the first five months of 1996. Bookings by visitors from South-east Asia fell by 39 per cent in the same period, while the number of visitors from north Asia dropped by 13 per cent.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: They’re having a hard time in Cairns, too.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes, the Queensland north coast is really suffering. The Sydney Morning Herald of 21 July 1997 reported that Singapore’s biggest tourism operator, Chan Brother Travel, has pointed out that Australia has slipped from being the most favoured holiday destination to the third most favoured destination behind the United States and China, with an estimated revenue loss of $3.7 million. The racist image of Australia has also affected its education export to Asia. Asians are getting rather negative about Australia. Overseas students contribute more than $3 billion a year to Australia’s economy, making education one of its most profitable and fastest-growing export industries.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That figure is about the same as the value of coal that goes out of Newcastle.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I would believe that, and I know of recent television reports quoting that figure. Since the advent of Hanson the number of student visas to Australia has decreased by 19.7 per cent. Student numbers to Australia from Taiwan are down by 20 per cent, the overall number of enrolments from China has decreased by just more than 9 per cent and the number of enrolments from Hong Kong has decreased by 0.7 per cent. That trend is harmful to our economy. Cultural interchange in the form of overseas students increases the region’s understanding of Australia and forms life-long bonds and loyalties to Australia. These ties strengthen relations with Australia and are economically beneficial to Australia.

The Australian public and opinion makers, including politicians, news media, business leaders and academics, must do everything possible to minimise the impact Hanson is having on all of the sectors I have mentioned. I say again now, as I have said on numerous occasions, that racism is an issue that is above partisan politics. That is my reason for moving this amendment. Australia has become an example of a successful multicultural society, as was acknowledged by the President of the United States, Mr Bill Clinton, in his speech at Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, Sydney Cove, which we all attended. Many of my parliamentary colleagues, however, have refused to become involved in the debate and have been latent in their response. That may be for reasons of political correctness, because they may agree with many of Hanson’s views, or simply because they are too frightened of losing votes.

I am disappointed that many of my colleagues and leaders of the community on both sides of the political divide have been reluctant to stand up and voice their opposition to Hanson and her likes. It is only when we take on Hanson and counter her views that we send out a message to migrants and their children that they are welcome in our community, that we acknowledge that they have contributed to the growth and development of Australian society and that we appreciate the contribution they have made to this country. We must accept and recognise that they are also Australians.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They are equally Australians.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Australians are Australians. Migrants should not be discriminated against. To me, it is very un-Australian to look down to another Australian as if he or she were a lesser person. The ethnic and Aboriginal communities have been blamed and used as scapegoats for all of the malaise and problems of society - unemployment, crime, disease and so on. They are easy targets. One need only look at the likes of the people who join the One Nation Party and work for Hanson to gain some idea of where the One Nation Party is heading. The danger with the One Nation Party is that it now seems to be managed more intelligently than it was initially. That means that we must handle our response to attacks on multicultural Australia by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party intelligently; we must not turn this debate into a political football. Those opposed to Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party must attack together.

Initiatives undertaken by the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, such as monitoring the news media in Asia and the $5 million allocated by the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, Federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, for an antiracism education campaign, are examples of positive action that can be taken. Other essential initiatives are the motion on racial tolerance, which was moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by Leader of the Opposition and passed unanimously in the Federal Parliament in November 1996, and
Page 1714
national community movements such as Racial Respect, which I have mentioned many times before.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It’s a very important organisation.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: The honourable member should join up; I have already joined. Though we may not yet be feeling the full impact of Hanson’s actions, I am almost sure that if we remain placid and complacent we will not be able to escape her damaging impact in the long term. Certainly I can testify to the fact that, like the White Australia policy, Hansonism will not be forgotten or laid to rest easily. Before I conclude I should like to reiterate that Australia is a multicultural society and in reality it will remain so. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that cultural diversity is seen as a positive force in our community. It is that cultural diversity that enriches our country as it is today. We must condemn the continual attack on Australia’s multicultural society by Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party. It has been said that Hanson and her One Nation Party have divided our cohesive and harmonious country; they have put Australian against Australian. I commend the amendment to the House and urge Government members, particularly the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, to accept my amendment and put aside party politics. I urge crossbenchers to accept this amendment. We should work towards a united multicultural society.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.38 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support the motion and the amendment moved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. The seeds of this debate are the news media attention given to the remarks of the Federal Independent member for Oxley in her maiden speech - her first speech, as the Australian Democrats prefer to say. Some people would probably say that the immigration issue is an abscess on our society that has to be lanced, and that free speech must be encouraged in order to engender community debate. Others possibly might go even further and say that political correctness has gone too far and that the member for Oxley is merely a conduit for community sentiment that has been suppressed for too long.

Others might take a leaf from Margaret Thatcher’s book and attempt to ensure that those who speak out on issues of race in this country are "starved of the oxygen of publicity". Certainly the radical Left have ensured that Ms Hanson receives far more publicity than she merits, by engineering the sort of violent confrontation that captures the imagination of the media. It is to be hoped that this fact will not be lost on people who are organising those confrontations and on people who organise her public meetings. I want to spend some time addressing the real evil, the root cause, if you like, of racism. The Independent member for Oxley said in Federal Parliament:

In response to my call for equality for all Australians, the most noisy criticism came from the fat cats, bureaucrats and the do-gooders. They screamed the loudest because they stand to lose the most - their power, money and position - all funded by ordinary Australian taxpayers.

One can only assume that by that sort of remark she implied that migrants, Aborigines and others somehow do not pay taxes and would be moved to riot in the streets if an organisation had the hide to lobby a politician in an attempt to improve the lot of their community, and were not greeted by an open door and access to key decision-makers. The Independent member for Oxley is herself in a position to access key decision-makers - and I believe it would be fascinating, particularly prior to the next Federal election, to watch how she has chosen to exercise her position of power. Will she pursue those perpetrating white collar crime and tax evasion, or those cheating on insurance and compensation claims with the same enthusiasm with which she is currently pursuing those who may have been forced into social security fraud? So far as I am concerned, her future contributions will be watched with interest. I state now, as Alan Ramsey has pointed out, that members of Parliament should be recorded by Hansard accurately when reading or stating figures in support of an argument. I have a document that was prepared by my party, dated June 1997 and entitled "Why Pauline is Wrong". It sets out her comments and simply points out that what she says is totally and absolutely inaccurate. After all, in her maiden speech on 10 September 1996 she said:

I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the Government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia.

Of course, poverty and poor health are prevalent among Aboriginal communities. In 1994 Commonwealth spending on indigenous health was only 1.2 per cent of the total health budget. Aboriginal people have a life expectancy 15 to 20 years less than the general population. The death rate for Aboriginal children is 3 to 5 per cent times higher than for other children. Aboriginal women are 10 times more likely to die in childbirth than non-indigenous women. Ms Hanson is totally and absolutely wrong. She was also wrong when she said:

Page 1715

Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals.

The unemployment rate is 38 per cent for Aboriginal Australians, compared with 8.7 per cent for the general population. Jobless Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, when they register with the Department of Social Security, receive the same allowance or benefit rates as other unemployed Australians. Many Aboriginal people work for unemployment benefits through Community Development Employment Program schemes, often accepting less than the unemployment benefit. If they are working on these CDEP schemes they are not eligible for rent assistance or other concessions normally associated with unemployment benefits. She also stated:

I have done research on benefits available only to Aboriginals and challenge anyone to tell me Aboriginals are disadvantaged when they can obtain three and five per cent housing loans denied to non-Aboriginals.

Again, a total and absolute misrepresentation of the facts, which are that 28 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families own their own homes, compared with 67 per cent of all Australian families; and that 31 per cent of Aboriginal Australians rely on public housing, compared with only 6.8 per cent of the non-Aboriginal population. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission provides strictly means-tested concessions on home loans. Its interest rate starts at 5 per cent per annum and increases by .5 per cent a year until it reaches 1 per cent below the Commonwealth Bank housing loan rate. These loans are strictly limited, with about 441 indigenous families taking out a loan; and loan recipients pay between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of their gross income on loan repayments. Ms Hanson said:

It is abundantly clear that a great chasm exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal access to education. Why the financial burdens and hardship on the families of comparable incomes differ due to Aboriginality is a mystery.

That is a direct quote from a research paper issued by the member for Oxley in June 1996. However, the facts are these: for many Aboriginal people, particularly those in remote areas, there is little or no access to schooling; only 33 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children complete year 12, compared with the national average of 77 per cent; 9 per cent of indigenous youth will not attend school or will leave school before the age of 14, compared with 2 per cent of non-indigenous youths; 5.1 per cent of indigenous people did not go to school, compared with 0.9 per cent of non-indigenous people; and only 2.2 per cent of indigenous people have tertiary degrees, compared with 12.8 per cent of all Australians. The list goes on. I will finish with this note from Ms Hanson:

Hasluck’s vision was of a single society in which racial emphases were rejected and social issues addressed . . . but remember, when he gave his speech he was talking about the privileges white Australians were seen to be enjoying above Aboriginals. Today, 41 years later, I talk about the exact opposite - the privileges Aboriginals enjoy over other Australians.

What privileges? Aboriginal people are 16.5 times more likely to die in custody than non-indigenous Australians; Aborigines are more likely to be detained for more less serious offences than non-Aboriginal people; more than half the Aboriginal people held in police custody are detained for public drunkenness or street offences; indigenous Australians are 17.3 times more likely to be arrested than other Australians; indigenous juveniles aged between 10 and 17 years are 21 times more likely to be in juvenile detention than the rest of the population of that age. What privileges are enjoyed by Aboriginals as claimed by Ms Hanson?

It seems to me that future contributions of the member for Oxley must be watched with interest. Federal Parliament is broadcast live around the country. The corrected version that will lie on the shelves of the nation’s public libraries now differs from the broadcast statement made by the member for Oxley and regrettably many more people will remember what she said on radio than will ever read or bother to read her ramblings as published in Hansard. The statement under privilege of the Independent member for Oxley was broadcast to the nation as a whole. How can all of her errors - and I have pointed out the errors stated out of ignorance and recounted widely in the community - ever be corrected in the minds of those who heard her live in Parliament?

It was during her speech that she made the astounding statement about the population of Malaysia being 38 million people. That is ridiculous because every school child who does geography at school knows that the population of Malaysia is the same as the population of Australia - between 18 and 19 million people. I do not know why Federal Hansard allowed the corrections to be made - I do not believe they could have been made in this Parliament - but for reasons best known to itself at the time, those corrections were made. I focus for a minute on the key words in one of the catchcries made by the Independent member for Oxley: power, money and position.

Page 1716

Power suggests control over economic and social institutions. Churches and governments have traditionally enjoyed a great deal of power. Both institutions rely on support from the people. Both have a responsibility to expose ignorance and prejudice wherever it occurs and some institutions seemingly thrive on exploiting such traits. In the past, governments and churches have turned a blind eye to racism when it has suited them. Some people, like a member of my own party in Queensland, the Reverend Senator John Woodley, manage to gain life experience among indigenous Australians and then apply that experience to their role as elected representative in the exercise of power that is vested into them by the electorate. Some institutions forget their reason for being, and experience a drift away in support.

History will record that prejudice is alive and well in Australia today. I like to describe prejudice as little more than an emotional commitment to ignorance. It can be said that racism operates within a cycle that repeats itself, and recent evidence would support that theory. Economic downturns are particularly well suited to fuelling racism. I believe that racism is taught and that children absorb the attitudes of their elders, even if not directly, possibly by osmosis. On 15 October a regular columnist in the Sydney Morning Herald, Bob Ellis, who is well-known to the Labor Party, said, "Racism is not just political incorrectness. It is war. It’s hurting Australia now and the damage is building swiftly." In this case I agree with Bob Ellis.

A world such as ours must deal with extremely complex problems. Australia is and must be an example of how people can live together and solve problems. Canada, another Commonwealth country with a large white population, just as in Australia, but with a far higher intake of immigrants, is also working hard to build a multicultural society. Australia has a more favourable climate and ultimately changes those who live here for the better - largely as a result of its climate. The success of our nation will depend upon including in parliamentary representation the many races that make up this State and this nation.

Presently in Australia there is room for all, but debate on how many people this country can carry has begun. That debate must be based on scientific fact and not on emotion. Given that the limits to our population should be determined on scientific facts, the matter of our racial make-up is of little consequence to the ability of this island continent to carry a certain population. People of whatever race consume roughly the same amounts of food, water and energy, although possibly the wealthier members of our society consume more than they actually need and enjoy a very comfortable existence. In an ironic way it could be said that Australia should be encouraging more Bedouin migrants, more Kalahari bush people and more Inuit to its shores because they happily exist without pushing the very limits of sustainability in their own ecosystems. Perhaps we should learn more from our own indigenous people. I concur with the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s criticism of the use of racism in the Lindsay by-election as "a disgrace to Australian politics". The Hon. J. S. Tingle is not present in the Chamber today. He said:

It has debased and degraded what should be a sensible argument about something that’s important to Australia. It’s been exploited for some quite callous political gain.

It’s been exploited to try to get people’s votes and to play on people’s anxieties and to me that’s utterly damnable and we won’t have a part of it.

The Australian Democrats do not always agree with the Shooters Party and the Hon. J. S. Tingle, particularly on matters of firearm regulation, but his commentary on the issues of race in this country demonstrated a deeper understanding that has to be respected, and I respect him for his views. It is unfortunate that the Hon. J. S. Tingle has been pigeonholed as someone apparently concerned only with the rights of those in the community who choose to have firearms and shoot those firearms as a recreation. The Hon. J. S. Tingle is currently sharing a platform as a political leader with a handful of other political leaders and is speaking out against racism. He displays a determination to address the issue of immigration as distinct from the issue of race.

The former leader of the Australian Democrats and now President of Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population, Dr John Coulter, has consistently and legitimately raised the issue of population in this country. Dr Coulter’s concerns emanate not from fear about the racial make-up of Australia but from the viewpoint that Australia is unlike other continents, such as the United States, where the inland is able to be populated and farmed. Anyone who has flown across continental United States of America at night will surely have observed how populated the interior of that continent is. Lights and towns are to be seen all the way across it, unlike in Australia. The climatic and continental limitations of our country must be taken into consideration when we plan for the future. We have a right to debate the carrying capacity of our land. When people of my generation scowl at immigrants and mutter under their breath about immigrants taking their jobs and their seats on buses and trains, perhaps they should think for a minute and realise
Page 1717
that immigrants are more than likely to be on their way to work. They should realise that immigrants educate their children well and pay taxes - the same taxes, which incidentally are non-discriminatory, that pay for the hospitals, buses and trains needed and used by all members of society.

The world is changing. The pace of change is unsettling for many people but the good old Aussie fair go is still part of our culture. Amazingly, rural Australia still warmly embraces immigrants who demonstrate a willingness to be involved in community activities and to pull together with those communities. Local communities desperately need a doctor; I live in one such community. Asian and Indian general practitioners are welcomed by country people as valuable community members, as indeed they are. Those same communities mutter about Australian doctors who refuse to relocate to an area, complaining about the schools, the lack of sporting facilities and the lack of a BMW service centre.

Recently, the area where I live could not attract a doctor because access to the Internet was not available. As a community we are trying to rectify that. The doctor had laid down access to the Internet as essential to his relocation to the community. It is the willingness of immigrants who value the opportunity to play a part in society unencumbered by past hostilities and resentment experienced by many other societies that make this country special. Australia is a special country. It is a great country with a unique spirit. It can set an example for the rest of the world in terms of sustainable management of the environment, on which we all rely, and in terms of working for the greater good of humankind.

If we in Australia cannot achieve harmony, there is a bleak future for the world as we enter the new millennium. We live in a global village, and it is time for us to earn the respect of other nations and to aspire to the role of village elder, if not village chief. Australians have the values and skills to demonstrate effective leadership, to provide solutions and to champion human rights, particularly when tyranny, with all its ugly manifestations, has been identified. I am sure we will grow as a nation despite the Pauline Hansons of the world, and we will take the best of every culture that has come to call Australia home. We will mould, shape and cultivate the best in our society. We will adapt to change for the better and we will influence other nations to assess their directions and to aspire to the same values that make Australia the nation that I am proud to call my home.

On 3 September the Federal member for Oxley, Ms Pauline Hanson, apparently filed in the Supreme Court a suit against the ABC because its national radio station, Triple J, continued to broadcast material that Ms Hanson believed was not only highly defamatory but also against public values and social morality. The ABC was afforded every reasonable opportunity to cease broadcasting the material, but Ms Hanson honoured her promise to pursue the perpetrators of the material with vigour and resolve. She sought and was granted an interim injunction against the ABC, restraining it from broadcasting the material complained of until such time as the Supreme Court of Queensland determined the matter. At the time Ms Hanson said:

I am grateful for this injunction, not only because it removes this dishonest and defamatory material from the air, but because filth such as this is an affront to all decent Australians regardless of who may be the intended victim of such an attack.

I shall conclude by asking a rhetorical question. Was Ms Pauline Hanson referring to Pauline Pantsdown’s I’m a Backdoor Man, a song which was in fact banned on Triple J? Is it the same version that can be found on the Internet at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5192/index.html? I suggest that those with access to the Internet look that up.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [4.06 p.m.]: Pauline Hanson’s philosophy is a mix of populism, racism, isolationism and taxidriver banalities. However, she has given voice to an ugly part of Australian society and her message must be vigorously opposed. The Liberal Party was slow to take on the challenge and John Howard has not adequately opposed her bigotry and racism. Remember when Pauline Hanson first came on the Federal scene and made her extraordinary, astonishing racist claims, particularly about Aboriginal people and Chinese immigrants. John Howard’s reaction was to quote the mantra, "But we must protect free speech."

By protecting the sort of free speech John Howard was talking about, the incidence of racism has increased and our social fabric has been cleaved in such a way that I am sure the nicer elements of those who voted for John Howard are horrified. It is interesting that recently Cheryl Kernot gave as one reason for joining the Labor Party John Howard’s leadership on such important issues as Pauline Hanson. It is important to address the lies spoken by
Page 1718
Pauline Hanson in her maiden speech which are often quoted. There is no point in calling her an uninformed racist and bigot without supplying information that rebuts her allegations. Pauline Hanson said in her maiden speech:

I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.

In 1995 Britain supplied the greatest number of migrants to Australia, followed by New Zealand, the former Yugoslavia and Vietnam. Based on recent migration patterns, about 7.5 per cent of Australian citizens might be Asian born by the year 2031. Asian migrants are much more likely to become Australian citizens than British migrants. It is extraordinary that one way we judge whether someone has become a good Australian citizen is by whether they are naturalised, and Chinese migrants are much more likely to be naturalised than British migrants. Pauline Hanson further said:

Immigration must be halted in the short-term so that our dole queues are not added to by . . . unskilled migrants not fluent in the English language.

Half of all migrants have post-secondary school qualifications; 13 per cent have degrees, compared to 5 per cent of the general population; and only 17 per cent - that is the 1990 figure - rely on social security. Our migrant community comprises a better-educated and better-qualified group of people who are less likely to be on social security than Australian-born people. Under Howard’s new draconian social security provisions, migrants now have to wait two years for most benefits. Unemployment has risen fairly steadily since the 1970s, while immigration has remained steady and has fallen slightly in recent years. To argue that Asian immigration somehow contributes to unemployment is taking no account of the fact that unemployment rises while migration remains steady, or even falls. The other leg of Pauline Hanson’s vulgar white nationalism is her attack on Aboriginal Australians. In her maiden speech she said, "I talk about the privileges Aborigines enjoy over other Australians." She has failed to ever supply credible evidence of these so-called "privileges", and she seems happy to ignore facts such as the life expectancy of Aboriginal males being 18 years fewer than for non-Aboriginal males, and the infant mortality rate being between three and five times higher than for non-Aboriginal Australians, depending on which part of Australia they live in.

Another extraordinary statement made by Pauline Hanson was that the Family Law Act, which was "the child of the disgraceful Senator Lionel Murphy", should be repealed. Without going into Ms Hanson’s family law background, this is obviously a 1950s attitude to the family, a view that unhappy couples should stay together for some outmoded, semi-religious reason. The other corker in her maiden speech was her call for "the introduction of national service for a period of 12 months, compulsory for males and females finishing year 12, or reaching 18 years of age". I will not even go into an argument about that, but it is interesting that that sort of authoritarian mind-set still exists in the 1990s.

One of her statements that is available on the One Nation website is that "Aborigines were not peaceful food gatherers. They were warring tribes and they were cannibals." The rather interesting academic controversy fuelled by this statement overwhelmingly offers evidence to the contrary. There is no credible academic evidence that backs up her view that Aborigines were cannibals. However, Pauline is irrepressible. When the 1996 census figures were produced, showing that only 21.9 per cent of migrants arriving are Asian born, she denied the census figures and replied, "We really need to address it. We need to address these communities springing up in Australia so that I feel like I am a foreigner in my own country."

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Who does she include amongst Asians? That is an issue in itself. It could be anyone from Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Turkey or any of those countries.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: But the real problem she has is that she does not believe the census figures. She has continually denied that the census figures are right.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is a conspiracy.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: We know about conspiracies, do we not? She said, "We need to address these communities that are springing up in Australia so that I feel like I am a foreigner in my own country."

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I hope she feels that way, because she is a foreigner in her own country.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Although I hate to say that I agree with Amanda Vanstone on anything, her comment on Pauline Hanson is absolutely accurate. Amanda Vanstone said, "Like an old LP record with a scratch, she repeats and repeats that she is proud to be an Australian. Doesn’t she think that the rest of us are?" The point about Hanson’s sense of Australianism is
Page 1719
that it is essentially white Anglo-Saxon and probably Protestant. I have spent my life as a teacher of history and a teacher of Australian politics in universities -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You still have a life.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I have spent my life as a teacher in universities trying to impress on students that their view of the world was essentially a white Anglo-Saxon, middle-class view, and that other realities had occurred. Teaching at Macquarie University one often had middle-class kids coming from north shore schools who really had a Pauline Hanson view of the world. But the internal contradiction in Pauline Hanson’s view of the world is that she identifies herself as an Australian and not as a child of immigrants, which is quite extraordinary. Most anti-Asian campaigners are at least aware enough of the need for consistency that they do not also attack Aborigines.

The racist movements in the 1930s and 1940s always argued the right of Aboriginal citizens because they recognised that if they were to attack immigrants, they had to recognise that they themselves were immigrants. Pauline Hanson has no problem attacking Australia’s original inhabitants on the one hand, and future inhabitants on the other. Obviously, only that part of migration that occurred in the 1800s and early 1900s can be acceptable to her, because that period included her family. Pauline Hanson is opposed to the original inhabitants, she is opposed to future Asian inhabitants, but she totally approves of those white Anglo-Saxons who came to Australia in the 1800s and the 1900s.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: My Italian family came in the 1880s. Does she approve of me?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: She probably finds it very doubtful. However, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti would be very happy to know that I approve of him. Finally, we see that One Nation party support amongst Australians is now dropping. It has dropped from a high of 13.5 per cent to about 8 per cent, although I heard a recent poll which had its support as low as 6 per cent. Commentators believe that part of the fall in support was a result of demonstrations against the formation meetings of the One Nation party. Unlike others in my party, I believe that these demonstrations must be supported. The media will always paint demonstrators as the baddies, no matter how well behaved or dignified they are.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.