Mr RUDDOCK (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs)(11.29 a.m.) —I do thank the member for Denison (Mr Kerr). In relation to the last matter he raised, there will be a further speaking opportunity when I propose the consequential amendment.

Mr Kerr —Are you doing that today?

Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, immediately. That is perhaps a more appropriate time to address the capping matters, because I do have a more lengthy contribution to make on that. I do welcome the cooperation that has been extended to try to find areas of common ground. It has meant, of course, that the government has been able to achieve greater cost recovery, which was an election commitment. It has ensured that we are able to deal with the citizenship deprivation issue—a situation which, before, has allowed people to come here deceiving us as to their status when they migrate and to cure that by taking out Australian citizenship a fairly short time after their residency. That is not a matter that should be allowed to go on. And of course there is the cohabitation issue.

It is regrettable in the context of the welcome coincidence of view that we have reached on these matters that the honourable member saw fit to take a whack at the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). He is always keen to do this. The Prime Minister has always taken the view that he should assert positively the government's position on issues of race and discrimination and has done so at every opportunity and continues to do so.

The interesting aspect of the Prime Minister's approach is that when we undertook very extensive consultation on the government's development of the proposals to implement the race education campaign two issues came out very strongly from all the people who we were talking to. The first was: should it be called an anti-racism campaign? The people we were talking to said, `No, that is too negative. We do not think it is appropriate.' Second, they said, `Whatever messages you are going to give, they need to be positive. You will not change people's attitudes by berating them, but you can change people's attitudes by bringing them along with you in a better understanding of our cultural diversity and what it means for Australia.' That was a very strong message to us. Interestingly, it was the approach that the Prime Minister took on this very question.

It is interesting that we have often talked about getting a bipartisan approach on these matters. I have been on the other side of the House and have had to deliver on bipartisanship. I have to say that when I was in opposition I found that former prime ministers and ministers would hand down from on high the government's position and then berate us if there was not agreement with the position that the government had taken because we were in some way depriving the government of bipartisan support which had long been a feature of this policy area.

Mr Kerr interjecting—

Mr RUDDOCK —Let me just say that I would welcome from the opposition the same sort of bipartisan approach that I took when I was in the member's position. You may want to use some of the words that I used to describe the position we would reach. When we were able to agree, I used to describe it as a `coincidence of view'. I hope we are able to achieve more coincidence of view.

The government does have its policy commitments and we will be looking at the issues as ones that ought to be pursued. As to the cost recovery issue, we have certainly said that we will not proceed with the English education charge. The Senate has taken a view on that matter. I do not think it is yet ready to reconsider that approach, but I hope it will in the future. We have withdrawn that matter so as to be able to proceed with it on another day. I expect to come back with proposals to enable the Senate to relook at this question. (Extension of time granted) I hope that the Senate would look at the question, which I have posed before in this House, of the extent to which we can reasonably expect the Australian taxpayers—in other words, other Australians—to pay for the English language education of the family members of those who access Australia through, say, the business migration program as, say, investors bringing millions of dollars into Australia and the view that, if you come with a spouse or children who do not have English, there should be a subsidy for the cost of teaching those family members.

I take the view that if you come through the skilled categories—that is, if you are in the categories where people are expected to have resources and skills that are going to enable them to earn an income in Australia and resources to maintain themselves—it is not unreasonable to ask that you meet the full cost of the education in English of your spouse and dependants. I do not think that is a matter it is unreasonable to press. I hope that on that matter the opposition may see the light. I hope that we may be able to come to some accommodation.

On the issue of the de facto and interdependent categories, the interdependents are not dealt with in this bill. I can regulate in that area, obviously subject to the approval of the Senate and this House, in the same way that I am seeking power to regulate in relation to de facto relationships. I have always seen the de facto and interdependent categories as like in this context, and when I propose regulations as a result of the passage of these amendments I will propose like amendments for the interdependent class.

I noted that John Laws wrote of my compromising in this area that I was in some way a wimp. It ought to be clear that we are putting in place very significant provisions to enable us to deal with bona fides questions. The reason that we are of the view that there should be a reasonable cohabitation period for de factos before arrival in Australia is in order to be able to substantiate that the relationship is one of an enduring character, not one that has been conveniently cobbled together for the purposes of migration.

Our policy argued that it should be two years, the parliamentary committee had argued before that it should be at least one and the former government thought that it should be six months but because of the Sex Discrimination Act was told that the relevant provisions had to be removed. That effectively meant that de factos could theoretically have a relationship of a week. Sure, somebody had to make a judgment as to whether it was bona fide, and it may be a difficult test to satisfy in those circumstances, but that was the position my officers were put in.

We are seeking here a provision for a cohabitation period, which we think is reasonable. The 12 months as a compromise is a position that we are to agree on. But let me make the point as to why I think it is appropriate in this area to have that distinction. Marriage does bring with it some consequences. One consequence is that you can only separate through a process of divorce. That may be relatively easy in Australia under our Family Law Act.

Mr Kerr —But it has property consequences.

Mr RUDDOCK —But it does have property consequences and, if there are children in the relationship, it has consequences there. This is different from a de facto situation where the parties can agree to separate without the consequences of that particular legislation. That is what I believe is the substantial difference. I confirm that I will be allowing in the regulatory framework that I am proposing for me and my delegates to exercise discretion where there are circumstances in which it is illegal or inappropriate for people to be able to cohabit for the required period and that that factor can be taken into account in the appropriate cases.

Question resolved in the affirmative.