Mr McCLELLAND(2.01 p.m.) —At the outset of my speech on the migration legislation, I would like to indicate some concerns I have with the comments made by the previous speaker in this debate, the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson). Specifically, at page 7,716 of yesterday's Proof Hansard , the member for Bradfield said:

The Hanson phenomenon . . . has its origins . . . in the failure of the previous government to listen to a sense of growing unease with the continued advocacy, frequently with religious fervour, of multiculturalism.

On the following page of the Proof Hansard , he said:

It is a phenomenon which in many ways could be expected as a response to the stifling imposition of values and thinking by the former Prime Minister.

They are comments which I would like to address and address with some intensity.

If the honourable member is referring to the approach of the former Labor government to issues concerning the mix of cultures in our society and our immigration policy, I suggest, with respect, that he could do no better than read the launch of the former Labor government's policy on 20 January 1996 by Paul Keating, the then Prime Minister. I will not read the entire speech, just some of his comments. He said:

. . . when you open yourself up to the world, when you are brave enough to look cultural difference in the eye, you learn a great deal. And half of what you learn is about yourself. And you are made stronger by that and more mature.

That is what I mean by immigration being essentially an exchange. For everything we have given to the people from 160 countries who have come here, we have been repaid. For a new start in life, they repaid Australia in their energy, ideas and ambitions, in their skills and in their culture. But, just as importantly, in the greater maturity, self-knowledge and the courage they have given us.

As for the so-called stifling approach of the former Prime Minister, I can say that Mr Keating spoke about this suggestion more recently when addressing the University of New South Wales. He referred to the `timid little creatures' like Bruce Ruxton, Alan Jones and Graeme Campbell, who he said seemed remarkably undeterred. He also referred to the fact that letters, newspaper columns and talkback radio shows were notably not unforthcoming in their criticism of him.

On not one occasion in this House have I heard anyone refer with specific words to an instance where the former Prime Minister attempted to stifle, limit or restrict any debate regarding Australia's immigration policy. The former Prime Minister did say something about the expression `political correctness'. He said:

. . . it has provided a useful smokescreen for some crude turnings in the national debate. And in the smoke a very ugly, resentful and xenophobic cat has been let out of the bag.

That is what we get down to in the member for Bradfield's speech, in terms of attempting to attribute the source of this current unfortunate and highly damaging racial debate—who let that cat out of the bag?

Prior to 10 September, which was the date the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) made her maiden speech, the present Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is on record on numerous occasions as having preached, with almost a religious fervour, a condemnation of this concept of `political correctness'. It is interesting and informative to look at the way the present Prime Minister has approached that topic. In an address to the Queensland division of the Liberal Party in Brisbane on 29 August 1996, just 12 days prior to the member for Oxley's maiden speech, he said:

. . . we face, turning around the cultural attitudes in some areas, getting rid of some of the obsession with political correctness in our society but at the same time not embracing an excessive intolerance of legitimate dissent and legitimate minority points of view.

I emphasise the words `excessive intolerance' and draw that phrase to the attention of this House. In other words, intolerance is okay; intolerance is fine. It is `excessive intolerance' that the Prime Minister objects to. Well, with respect to the Prime Minister, either you are tolerant or you are intolerant. You are not tolerant or excessively intolerant. That puts it well and truly into perspective. What did the Prime Minister say after the member for Oxley made her maiden speech on 10 September? He said:

People know that the views that I expressed on free speech and political correctness were expressed long before, long before Pauline Hanson made her maiden speech in Parliament. She had a right to say what she thought.

Under, for instance, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, would she have had the right to have said it if she had not been in this House? I would remind honourable members that section makes it unlawful for any person to do an act `that is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people' because of their `race, colour, or national or ethnic origin'. In the context of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, if the member for Oxley had not been in this House and had not had the protection of qualified privilege, would she have been able to lawfully say outside this House what she said in her maiden speech? She said this:

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

. . . . . . . . .

They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.

Further, the member for Oxley referred to an extract from a speech of the late Arthur Calwell, then Leader of the Opposition, in which he said:

Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti- white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here?

The member for Oxley said:

I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell.

Did she have a right to say that? Did she have a right in this House to breach those principles contained in the Racial Discrimination Act and to start off what is perhaps one of the most stupidly embarrassing and damaging phases of Australia's economic outlook and, indeed, its social morality, the full extent of which is only recently coming to light? I ask the member for Bradfield: who, in those circumstances, was responsible for letting the cat out of the bag? This is one instance where I would agree with the member for Cowan (Mr Richard Evans), in that this cat needs to be put down. But it can only be put down by one person, the Prime Minister, unequivocally and unreservedly coming out and condemning those statements which have been made.

Our system of government is challenged in reality whenever minorities are excluded from effective participation in our society by government decisions, even when those decisions reflect the will of the majority. In other words, our system of government is predicated on all Australians having a fair go. It goes without saying that they cannot have a fair go if they cannot communicate. That is precisely what the inability to speak English is in this country. It is an inability to communicate. It is an inability to be a productive member of our economy and our society. It is the inability to have your voice heard by government. It is the inability to raise a family in a confident and secure fashion so that they become productive and contented members of our society. In short, it is isolation from mainstream Australia. For our nation, the inability to communicate means institutionalised disadvantage, it means inevitable division, it means inevitable frustration and it means inevitable pressures arising from discontent and resentment. For our nation's economy it means having a sector which is unproductive and underutilised. It is in the context of those remarks that I address and speak against this bill, which restricts the ability of new settlers to obtain English skills.

One of the purposes of the bill is to roll the health services charge and the English education charge into one visa application fee. The health charge itself has increased from $840 to about $2,500, and the English education fee has also increased to $5,500, making a combined figure of about $8,000. The bill also amends the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 to sever the connection between it and the Immigration (Education) Charge Act and limits the liability of the Commonwealth to provide English language tuition in all cases to 510 hours, irrespective of the competence obtained by the student immigrant.

This bill, in so doing, will only accentuate anti-migrant sentiments that are unquestionably being cunningly and opportunistically manipulated for short-term political gain. The government's focus should be on empowering new arrivals to fend for themselves. That empowerment fundamentally involves learning English. In the case of many of those migrants, given the drive and quite literally the pioneering spirit that they reflect, once they are taught English it is simply a matter of getting out of their way and letting them succeed for themselves, for their families and for Australia.

The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) himself has recognised the essentiality of English skills if new arrivals are to succeed. On 3 July this year, the minister said that research has consistently shown that good English skills are the key factor to labour market and overall settlement success for new immigrants. Yet the government has cut 120 adult migrant English classes. In my electorate of Barton the number of such classes has been reduced from 18 to just three.

As I said, the cap of 510 hours is one which is arbitrary and unrealistic. The tragedy is that we have a very significant resource base in our migrant population and it is simply a matter of tapping into that. I draw the analogy of anyone who has bought an expensive piece of equipment, whether it is a computer, a metal press or whatever. That piece of equipment is all but useless, it lies on the factory floor or in a wasted corner of an office, unless it is properly introduced and properly installed, so that it communicates and functions with the rest of the enterprise; indeed, until the operator of that machine is properly trained. Once the operator and the machine are properly installed, they usually become extremely productive units.

That is precisely my point regarding new arrivals to Australia—they are a great source of talent and enterprise. What we need to do is properly install them into our society, our economy and our political system by affording them proper English training. From my point of view, any money spent in up-skilling those new arrivals is an investment not only in their future but in Australia's future.  In 1995-96, for instance, 38,660 new arrivals were taught English. No-one, I would suggest, could sensibly say that was a waste of money. It was, as I have stressed, an investment in our future.

In fairness to the member for Bradfield, in his speech he dispelled suggestions that migration has caused unemployment. I note that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in a recent fact sheet entitled `Immigration and Unemployment' has also confirmed that analysis and, again, dispelled the suggestion that migration has caused unemployment.

What the fact sheet shows, however, is that lack of English skills chronically retards the ability of new arrivals to obtain employment. It results in the fact that they find employment where they do—usually in industries which are hardest hit by recession, so they are the first ones to lose their jobs. Indeed, from my experience in a former capacity, I know that new arrivals featured more frequently in the injury and workers compensation court lists. Some ignorant people said that was because of a particular disposition. I would always say to those people: look at the trades they were in. Inevitably, they were in the heavier, dangerous, dirty, labouring occupations—again, because of their lack of English skills.

All of these things, all of these aspects of the difficulty that a number of new arrivals have because they are unable to communicate and to contribute fully to our society and our economy, have a flow-on effect of contribut ing to the racial debate. Those who would seek to foster that debate point to their lack of success, their isolation and the fact that, perhaps because of their inability to broadly communicate, they may in many instances communicate more frequently amongst themselves. All of these things can be broken down with a bit of effort and a bit of foresight. Crucial among those are English language skills.

It is unfortunate that the government in this bill is increasing the English language charge and is also restricting English language training in all cases to 510 hours. There is a real risk that unless the situation is redressed, unless each and every migrant who comes here receives proper English language training, we are creating intergenerational poverty.   A recent survey of Arabic speaking youth in my electorate indicated that 20 to 30 per cent of Arabic speaking youths in my area drop out of school. Their unemployment rate is 14 per cent higher than the Australian average. Almost universally, those Arabic speaking youths who were questioned said that the disadvantage they suffered from most intensely was a lack of English skills in their family and hence the confidence and security that they had both within that family and in terms of their expectations and ability for career development.  It is something that we can easily work at. The government should not be taking a populist approach on this matter. (Time expired)