Mr BROADBENT(10.00 p.m.) —I rise with pleasure to follow the member for Melbourne Ports, Clyde Holding, in the debate on the migration bills. I say to the House tonight that I do not come to this place with the passion the member for Deakin (Mr Barresi) displayed, the experience the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson) has with his approach to this issue or the depth of experience and wisdom the member for Melbourne Ports, Clyde Holding, has.

It is a pleasure to be in the House and to see two new members of parliament—Teresa Gambaro, the member for Petrie, and Phillip Barresi, the member for Deakin—sitting here chatting. I wonder whether their parents ever dreamed that one day Teresa Gambaro and Phillip Barresi would hold office in the parliament of Australia—the country they came to.

We raise this debate at a time when, as the member for Melbourne Ports has outlined, the broad community is facing some difficulty. I was recently called to a meeting of concerned citizens of Pakenham—it turned out to be not quite the concerned citizens of Pakenham—and there were 70 people there when I thought there would be seven people. I tell you the story because we still run a small business in an outer Melbourne area in part of my electorate. It was a very difficult night for me because a number of people in that room actually came from my church, came from my town, came from my community, and they were raising a whole lot of issues that were certainly not ones I supported.

It would have been easy for me, in a marginal seat, just to roll over and agree with everything they said. But I could not, because I represent a multicultural community. There ain't no difference in the blood that runs in the veins of the people who live in the streets of Pakenham, Traralgon, Morwell, Moe or any of the townships in my area. As the member for Melbourne Ports said, we do have some disagreement, we do have some arguments, on this issue. We do have differing views within parties and with the opposition parties. A number of issues have been raised tonight about opposition parties.

I found myself having to stand my ground at that meeting the other night. It was a great pleasure that in the ensuing week, after I thought I had had a pretty tough time with those people, people from the meeting actually came into my wife's place of business and said, `Look, we didn't go to that meeting to support your husband, but we are very proud of the way that he defended himself on the issues on behalf of his party and the approach that they were taking.'

I do not come tonight to pat anybody on the back but to say this. I have known the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) for some seven or eight years. I came back into the parliament and found him in a very responsible position, having to respond not only to the program put to the people before the last election but also to the position that he finds himself having to deal with now he has been given the facts of the situation. I have watched him quietly and with compassion. He has listened and sought out the views of many people, including the backbench, by the way, which is different. He has put a point of view and has put that into legislation, in a deliberate fashion, which reflects the influence he has gained in the short time that he has been the minister. I thank him for that because it is a most difficult issue. As I said, he went about it quietly. No voice has been raised by the minister or any of us on this side of the House on this issue, yet voices have been raised on the other side. That is disappointing.

The member for Deakin had some passion and concern not only for his community but for the broader Australian community. My disappointment, though, comes with the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay), who, when he ran out of his written speech, had to say that everything we were putting forward was bizarre. For heaven's sake, I know the member for Watson would have been very keen to introduce a number of the reforms that have been introduced in this bill. We have gone out of our way to be compassionate and to bring forward a sustainable migration program—knowing that it needed some reform—that is acceptable to the Australian community.

Yes, you are right, we all have instances where people have been out of order. But is that not the same for every issue that comes before this parliament—that there are people who tend to rort the system, that there are people who do step out of line, that there are people who do the wrong thing? Should this issue be any different? I do not think so. In fact, I am sure that is not the case.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in accordance with your normal wishes, I will come to the substance of the bill in a few moments. But, if I can just take a minute, the member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris)—I have known him for quite a while—called for a balanced program. I believe we have put in place a balanced program. We set out to put in place a balanced program that is acceptable to the community. We do have policies that affect the family. What disappointed me was that he had no yardstick. His whole approach in his speech to the parliament was that there was no yardstick, no limit. He never suggested a limit; he never suggested an appropriate outcome. He just went through all the downside. He talked about, as members do, `the one case I had last year' or `the particular case I had last year'. The legislation has to address the whole of the issue, not `the one case'.

It is disappointing that someone who is as experienced and has worked on as many committees as the member for Newcastle made remarks about not attending to the yardsticks and the limits that we have to put in place. It is our sovereign right, actually, to put those yardsticks in place. This is our Australia. We make the rules, and that is what we are here for. We are in government and we intend to make the rules on behalf of the nation, because there is feeling in the community—rightly or wrongly—that the former government did not get it right. And the new government rightly has an opportunity to address itself to those issues.

I come to the remarks of the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who just about broke my heart, knowing his passion and concern for this issue. I get very displeased when he stands up and says, `You are speaking to an expert on this issue.' Everybody is an expert on this issue and every other issue in this parliament. And he was wrong.

The former government were rejected because they said, `If you can't do it in this country, we are going to send it off to the United Nations'—for heaven's sake! The member for Calwell said, `If you don't do the right thing here, we'll send it off to the United Nations. We will get you on discrimination.' Yes, discrimination, or discernment? We want to discern what is right for our country, what gives the people that do come here the best opportunity.

I do not care whether you happen to be Croatian, Serbian, Polish, Italian: the member for McMillan is going to support those people in his electorate. Whether or not you have an English background, I am going to stand by you, especially the new Bosnian people, whom I have terrible difficulty communicating with because of their English skills—

Mr Georgiou —And yours!

Mr BROADBENT —And mine—the Filipino group and the Irish group. The staff working around me even tonight—and I wish them all the best stuffing envelopes tonight—are from an Irish background; one is of direct Italian descent and one is from an Italian-English background. They are good people, all of whom you would describe as Australian. But when it comes to the debate that has been raging in this nation, they also feel concerned and just a little bit threatened as to how the broader community treats not only them but their parents and the others around them. It is rather a serious episode; not one for us to enter into tears about but to consider seriously.

Through the bill we are determined to—and we will—achieve the goals that we have set out to achieve. The bill sets out to achieve better management of the migration program. And, as I said before, it is a sovereign right of this nation of Australia to determine its own migration program. The family compo nent has grown disproportionately in recent years—1995-96—and this stream has grown by 27 per cent, representing nearly 70 per cent of the migration program in 1995-96. That is from the minister's second reading speech. Is it not right that we address those issues? Is it not right that we say, `Let us look at this issue and see if we can bring in some changes in the legislation that will effect a better outcome for our community'?

Under the family reunion program, the minister has hitherto only had the power to cap and terminate applications. The amendment that has been missed by most of the speakers on the other side actually allows the minister to cap and queue family migration. The measures are less draconian than the former government had in place, allowing some flexibility. It is the same for children. Where there is criticism where children are affected, it allows the minister to enter in and say, `Here is an issue that is not fitting into the mainstream.'

It is one of the things that I have argued for in a number of areas of government activity. For a long time we have wanted for those in management positions—be they ministers, heads of departments or heads of certain areas of government—to have more flexibility. This bill does exactly that. It gives more flexibility for decisions to be made on behalf of `ordinary'—I hate the word—reasonable people who want to come into this country.

We are looking for administrative efficiencies, of course, and the complexity will be removed by merging the visa application fee with the health services charge and the English education charge to form a single visa application charge. The charge will be subject to a maximum specified in the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Bill. Certain applicants will be exempt from the charge: refugees and humanitarian applicants.

Can you do more than address those in the bottom 20 per cent or 10 per cent? Throughout this bill and all of the government's new legislation, we have addressed ourselves to the social issues of the people who are underprivileged or disadvantaged. There has been no criticism from the other side of this House in regard to that issue.

In de facto relationships where the nature of the relationship forms the basis of an individual's application for citizenship, the veracity of such an arrangement is crucial to the legitimacy of one's citizenship. This bill proposes to allow the government to make regulations under the Migration Act 1958, stipulating that applicants for a permanent visa on the ground of de facto relationship with an Australian citizen or lawful permanent resident satisfies a two-year cohabitation requirement as a condition precedent to obtaining a permanent visa. De facto relationships are twice as likely as according to law relationships to fail during the period within which visa applications are assessed. This requirement is consistent with the coalition's election commitments.

An exemption will be sought from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, for otherwise such differential treatment will amount to discrimination on account of marital status, which, of course, is proscribed under the act. There are exceptions to the cohabitation requirement: for instance, where there are children of the relationship.

According to department advice, Australia has adopted a fair and generous approach to the entry of persons on the grounds of de facto relationships. The US, UK, France and Germany have no provisions allowing permanent entry of a de facto of one of their nationals. New Zealand has a two-year waiting period.

The integrity of our migration program necessitates decisive action where it is clear that the acquisition of citizenship has been tainted by fraud. The government needs to transmit the right signals about the value of citizenship. The bill proposes to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 and the Migration Act 1958. The changes will add a new ground to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, empowering the minister to deprive at his or her discretion a person of his or her citizenship where that citizenship is fraudulently procured. Where it can be proved that citizenship has been fraudulently procured, the minister has the right to determine whether a person should stay or go, or whatever else should happen.

The time limits within which prosecutions needed to be instituted, either pursuant to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the Migration Act 1958, have been removed. The provisions will operate prospectively. Any decision to revoke a person's citizenship on the ground of migration related fraud is subject to full merits review and judicial review.

I defend the right of any person to comment on Australia's immigration program or multiculturalism. As a parliamentarian, I am bound by solemn duty to represent all of the people in my electorate. I have many stories to tell about the people in my electorate and I would like to go through a couple very quickly.

The first is Tony Calabro, whom I met in the music industry. He arrived in Australia from Sicily when he was eight years old. His father had emigrated from Italy a year earlier to find work in Australia. Eventually, Tony Calabro senior landed full-time employment at the state electricity commission before starting his own business in the township of Moe.

Younger Tony found it difficult as a child contending with racial taunts of `wog' and `dago'. But he became interested in music and formed his own band, after which he began teaching locals how to play guitar. I cannot go into his whole story, because I think he was thrown out of his first band and had to learn a few lessons, as many of us do. But since that start he has taught over 8,500 people in the area and around Australia. He has contributed on a regular basis to local papers on the importance of being positive.

As part of a recent LEAP program, which told the story of new immigrants to the La Trobe valley, Tony contributed by telling his story, which has been recorded for posterity. Tony Calabro is a very well-known person, as is his brother and the rest of his family, and they have all made a major contribution to their area.

In the case of Shameen Rahman, she emigrated from Bangladesh in July 1972 with her husband and son. They settled in the La Trobe Valley in 1975. She says that she felt the racial aspersions cast on members of her family but not on her. Despite the problems her children faced and the family's struggles, she has opened a restaurant in the La Trobe Valley, which has been going now for nearly seven years. Far from being tokenism, this demonstrates the contribution that migrants have made to commerce and culture in the electorate of McMillan.

It does not matter what name you grab hold of—it could be the Falcon Soccer Club, which started as a small Italian soccer club and has grown into a national league soccer club—hopefully, they all play a part, in the minds of many Australians, as our population grows, be it with Indonesians, Filipinos, or whomever. If members care to get hold of them, all these stories are included in The Valley Success Stories: Migrant Voices to be Heard, which was launched at the German Club only a few months ago.

In finishing my comments on my commitment to multiculturalism and its benefits to Australia, I want to say this: we are most prone to alienating others of dissimilar ethnicity and values when we appropriate fear—when we appropriate fear in this debate or in any other debate that goes before this House. There has been far too much appropriation of fear and not enough praise of those people who have contributed so greatly.

This evening, in the short break we have just had after 6.30, I went down the street in this town and saw the variety of restaurants there. They are not selling just fish and chips and hamburgers; they are selling every nation's food. Every nation's food is appreciated not only here in Canberra but also in Longreach, Tasmania, Morwell, Moe, Traralgon, and all over the country.

If we continue to appropriate fear in this House, we only lead ourselves astray, confuse the issues and set ourselves apart from the community that we serve. From this date, let us move together not to appropriate fear but to appropriate the great pleasures that are before us in this country whilst we have such a great contribution from our multicultural friends. (Time expired)