Mr KERR(1.01 p.m.) —I am very pleased that on this occasion we again have an example of the way in which both sides of this House can find common ground. The member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) has been followed by the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth), and both have made I think very substantial contributions which do honour to this House.

I think there is a temptation amongst some of the critics of positions that are taken by the government and by the opposition to say that there is some lack of capacity for debate when mainstream parties find common ground, that they are squeezed out. They sometimes call this political correctness. The truth is we should not underestimate the value to the Australian community that comes from the great political parties of this country finding common ground on some issues.

I have been critical of some fraying at the edge of that bipartisanship in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs, for which I have responsibility as a shadow minister. I have been critical of the two-year waiting period decision of the coalition. I think, ironically, it will have an effect quite contrary to that which has been perhaps at the back of the minds of some who have supported that. It seems highly likely that if people are forced into situations where they are compelled to wait two years without benefits, were that to occur, and without a proper safety net then only the very wealthy or the desperate would come.

When that situation is coupled with an emphasis on English language skills, then, paradoxically, it is highly likely that our immigration intake would be skewed further towards those from the Asian region rather than towards what used to be traditional source countries. These are the ironies and paradoxes that emerge when one, in a sense, seeks to indirectly achieve that which is indefensible directly.

It is true to say that since the days of Malcolm Fraser we generally have found ourselves in broad agreement, and that has been very important for us as a community, as a nation. It is not surprising that there are still some within the Australian community who do not agree with the positions that are taken by both major parties, the National Party and the Democrats on this area of policy. Why is that? Because for a very long period of time we did have, supported by both sides of the Australian political system, a White Australia policy. It is within my lifetime that that policy existed and was maintained and defended.

It is hardly surprising that there are some within our Australian community who still feel troubled by that change. It will be fertile ground for demagogues and those who wish to play the racist card in public life in any society. Le Pen in France is a good example of that, as are some of the more recent phenomena that we have seen in Australia. I simply hope that the good sense and the tolerance of the Australian community are able to reject those appeals to intolerance that may have been exampled in some other societies.

A report in the Sydney Morning Herald gives some reason for confidence in that. Whilst there is concern about the level of migration intake into Australia, the huge preponderance of people who expressed that concern sheeted it home to concern about unemployment. I say straightforwardly that there are many academics of good standing who would say that that concern is unplaced, not justified, and that in fact bringing people in from overseas is actually an employment stimulator. But, of course, that runs counter-intuitively; it runs against people's own gut instincts.

The concern expressed about immigration was not based on racial grounds. Indeed, there was overwhelmingly strong support by much more than a simple majority for our programs of multiculturalism, programs which were endorsed by both sides. I think it is very important in this debate for us to stand up strongly and endorse the principles of the member for Prospect.

Finally, I turn to some of the documents that have been circulated more recently by the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). She has produced a fairly misleading set of documents that suggest that Aboriginal people in Australia are treated in a way which is prejudicially to their benefit, to a degree which is unjustifiable. Let us be blunt: firstly, if you look at indices of disadvantage in Australia, Aboriginal Australians are up there right at the top. Secondly, her data was wrong. For example, she claimed there was no program for children in rural Australia. There is, and it is the assistance for isolated children scheme. (Time expired).