Mr PYNE(11.10 a.m.) —Earlier this morning I was privileged to be in the House during the contribution of the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou), who spoke about the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill and used it as an opportunity to talk about the human rights of Asian and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens in our community being impinged over a period by the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson).

The member for Kooyong gave a very powerful speech. I, like the member for Banks (Mr Melham), who spoke on indulgence soon after his speech, wish to be associated with his remarks. It marks a shift in the debate about Hansonism, as it has come to be known, where her own words are being used to condemn the sorts of statements that she has been making. It has been clearly put on the table that what she has been saying has been racist and bigoted and that it has not been done out of ignorance but out of a purely crass, manipulative political motive.

It is now 20 years or more since the Commonwealth began to officially recognise the barbarism of discrimination. We drew a line in the sand and defined the difference between right and wrong by instituting certain laws such as the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, the Human Rights Commission Act in 1981, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992. These laws were enacted to provide for equality and access to employment and housing for all Australians regardless of colour, creed, gender or physical make-up.

While it is impossible to legislate people's attitudes, the growing awareness in the community that the elementary Australian principle of a fair go should be extended to everyone has seen a greater and wider tolerance and acceptance of all our fellow human beings. While there are no doubt prejudices still left over from a bygone era, in the main they remain below the surface, but not always.

There are times when these prejudices spill over the top, where the intolerance of one can adversely affect the standing of another in any number of ways. If it is necessary to have a law, then it is equally necessary to provide suitable means to enforce it and to ensure justice for the aggrieved party. At the same time, we must ensure that the cost to the person or persons wronged of such injustice in terms of both finance and stress is kept to a minimum.

But of themselves, these laws do not provide for the delivery of justice. There has long been a recognition that the current system, with its inconsistencies and variations between the anti-discrimination laws, is not the cure-all it was intended to be and that it needed revision. The conciliation process adopted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has proven successful in many cases, but there have been problems associated with resolution of those cases in which conciliation has proven unproductive.

This bill allows for major changes in two areas. It streamlines complaint investigations and conciliation procedures by bringing the various areas of discrimination dispute under the jurisdiction of the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and it enables applications to the Federal Court for settlement of disputes where conciliation fails. I think it is fair to say that all of us would favour the process of conciliation over that of litigation in these matters. Certainly, my office has already taken some calls from constituents fearing that the increased role of the Federal Court in these proceedings will discourage claims from people who are less well to do but aggrieved nonetheless.

Those people will be pleased to learn that the filing fees in the Federal Court will be waived in certain instances—for those holding Commonwealth health benefits cards; for those in prison; Austudy, Abstudy and legal aid recipients; children; and those who can demonstrate financial hardship. The Attorney-General's Department has noted that in excess of 30 per cent of all litigants would be likely to avoid paying the filing fee.

As I mentioned earlier, we would like to keep those matters out of court if possible, but a court ruling is by far the most certain method of collecting any compensation that might arise from a dispute. The regime introduced by the previous Labor government was found to be unconstitutional as evidenced by the Brandy case, which a number of the speakers have touched on this morning and no doubt will continue to touch on during this debate.

HREOC is a non-judicial body and does not have the constitutional power for dispute determination. While in opposition, the coalition made a vow to change the system and make it more workable. This bill, when passed, will give the system constitutional certainty and provides the most effective and efficient device for conciliation and determination of discrimination complaints.

I find it remarkable that members opposite can criticise us for reducing funding to the commission. In all their years in office the only thing they learned about government was how to spend more money each year. They looked at the budget papers and saw an increase in spending on each line and be lieved that that was good in itself. But they never bothered with the bottom line. It was as if they bought us all a new TV, stereo and VCR and never figured out that we did not really need them, or that we could not afford to pay for them. They unfortunately equated higher spending with greater justice. We know from years of experience in so many areas that greater spending does not mean greater justice.

Despite the reduced role, HREOC will retain an important role under these proposed new arrangements. Parties whose complaints reach the court may be assisted by a report prepared by the Human Rights Commissioner, and commissioners will also be able to join proceedings as a friend of the court. While the parliament cannot dictate to the court how it will conduct its own affairs, it is expected that the court will set up a human rights registry to assist clients and the judicial registrars will be appointed to handle the additional caseload that will eventuate from these new arrangements.

In all, the new system will serve to bring about more definitive rulings and better procedures for compensation. In addition, I would hope that some of the more frivolous cases never see the light of day under the new regime. I recall recently an elderly woman coming to my office to complain that she had been dragged before the commission on a trumped up charge of sex discrimination. She had denied a tenant permission to make alterations to her building because of doubts about insurance liability. The woman who had been contracted by the tenant to perform the work saw this as enough reason to claim that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender. There followed some media coverage of the charge and the owner of the building had her picture on the front page of the Advertiser, causing her some considerable stress.

As it came to pass, my constituent was eventually cleared of any discriminatory behaviour, but justice was hardly swift in coming. The proceedings were protracted and her relief at the final outcome was tempered greatly by the financial cost to her of the whole exercise. It is to be hoped, then, that these new arrangements will aid in weeding out the Chicken Littles from the genuine cases of discrimination. I suspect the numbers of people who seek to exploit the system in this way are very few, but it would be to everyone's benefit if every case had at least some real merit to it.

While the Australian spirit is one of overall fairness, that attitude, sadly, does not extend to every one of our people, especially when times are tough. It has been the experience that some will go looking for a scapegoat for their own failure. It has also been the experience that demagogues will seek to exploit that uneasy and uncertain situation to their own ends.

After such an extended period of Labor government, many things needed to be righted, and still do. It is a fair and reasonable expectation that Australians should ask a lot of questions about the way things have been and are being done in our country. That is the nature of our democracy, and debate on every aspect of public policy should be encouraged. The more debate, usually the more facts emerge.

But it is distressing that some who are posing as nationalists and upholders of the Australian tradition seem intent on providing simplistic solutions to complex problems. The member for Oxley is a major proponent of this dangerous method. She has garnered media attention because she shoots from the hip without delay, thought or clue. She sells newspapers. She is a human headline who has won support in some quarters because some have too easily mistaken `outrageous' for `courageous'. While she has changed her staff regularly, her views have undergone no such metamorphosis. It seems to me that that she has come into possession of the Pat Buchanan playbook and is now attempting to appeal to a wider audience.

Make no mistake. The member for Oxley is a populist looking for yet more targets as she gallivants around the country with her shadow dwelling disciples preaching her facile mantra, laying blame for national problems at the feet of Australian minorities. Crime? To her we blame Asian migrants. National debt? Let us blame our indigenous people. And on it goes from one issue to the other. I hear her defenders saying that she is saying only what many Australians are thinking. If that is the case, then those Australians are mistaken and we need to communicate better the modern realities and necessities of life in the 1990s.

Some of these realities need to be put on the record. Only 3.3 per cent of Department of Social Security welfare payments go to indigenous people. On a per capita basis, mainstream services and benefits are absorbed by indigenous people far less than they are by other Australians. Unemployment amongst indigenous people is about two or three times the national rate and mean income one-third less. The retention rates in schools are appalling. Indigenous health is such that only one-third will live to male pension age. Many communities operate without sewerage, electricity and adequate water supply. We have all heard that line: `I remember the days when we could leave our doors unlocked when we left the house.' I am sure that many of our indigenous people would be more than happy to lock their doors if they had them. Home ownership is less than half that of the national percentage. The number of occupants per household is nearly double.

Let us not fool ourselves that this is a privileged class of people, as the member for Oxley believes, or at least wants us to believe. Nor should we swallow her fantasy about the make-up of our population. It seems to me that she is trying to revive the old fear that we are about to be overrun by what used to be known in the times of the White Australia policy as `the yellow peril'. I think we have moved on from those days. Certainly I hope so.

The fact is that under five per cent of our population is Asian born. That figure will increase to just 7½ per cent over the next 30 years. I noted with interest this week the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and, in particular, the possibility of prosecution and fines for telling mistruths in election campaigns. It occurred to me that the member for Oxley may well have to increase the cover charge for her One Nation floor show if she does not clean up her act.

There are many scars that must be healed if Australia is to move forward and become a power in our region and throughout the world. We have unlimited potential, but we are held back because other nations are looking for excuses to question our integrity, especially on matters such as race relations. Reports from several high-ranking officials from Australia who have returned from Asia confirm that our trade is suffering because of some of the nonsense that is being talked in this nation.

The tourism market—the best chance we have to show the world the sort of nation we have and the people we really are—is being similarly affected. These empty-headed cries for a return to the policies of yesterday have reopened these scars and will continue to make our progress difficult. In a world economy, we must be competitive and cooperative. We must be beyond reproach in matters of race relations. Even more important, we must be seen to be beyond reproach.

Matters of race and discrimination in our past are very much in the news with the release of the Bringing them home report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into the stolen children. This report goes a long way to explain the depth of our feeling over indigenous people and their treatment. It contains a litany of horror, recollections of experiences from those who were taken from their families or had children taken from them. It is part of our history—our very recent history at that—and cannot be ignored.

It is a long report and its price will sadly prevent many Australians from buying it. Still, these true stories are required reading. I was particularly struck by the reminiscences of Fiona, who remembered all too well her experience of 1936 when she was five years of age. She was accompanied by her mother, two of her siblings and three cousins on a truck from Ernabella to the United Aborigines Mission in Oodnadatta.

That night, Fiona saw her mother leave the mission and never had the opportunity to say goodbye. Taken from her natural environ ment, Fiona adjusted to the ways of life of Europeans, moved to the suburbs of Adelaide and only later in life realised the deprivation of custom, family and language that she had suffered. After 32 years, she met her mother again and had to communicate with her through an interpreter. Still, Fiona concluded that she had to learn to forgive.

Her story is one of many that underline the tough plight of our indigenous population since European settlement. The passage of years has changed the attitude of the settlers from one of hostility to one of concern for their indigenous neighbours. As the report proves once again, sadly the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No-one can read these testimonies and fail to cringe at the injustices wrought on our fellow human beings by previous generations of Australians. That these events occurred in an attempt to help our indigenous people makes them no less terrifying or more justifiable. Those involved were robbed of a significant part of their lives. Those who are responsible and still with us today no doubt bear a great deal of shame for their part in these happenings.

As an Australian, I feel deep sorrow for these people who have endured so much. As an elected representative, I regret these travesties ever occurring and am more determined than ever to see all Australians achieve our goal of reconciliation. I am saddened that some have taken the release of this report as another opportunity to grandstand in an attempt to win points from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). His personal apology was heartfelt, no less than anyone's in this place, and indigenous people will surely fare better under this government than any previous Labor administration which was strong on promises but pathetic on delivery.

The chief responsibility of the Australian people is not so much for the past as it is for the future. While we should never lose sight of what has gone before us, I believe our eyes should be fixed ahead. We should forgive but not forget, and we should get on with the job of finding a way we can all live together and thrive together.

While we continue to break down barriers and work towards that goal, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has an important role to play. Its function should be more about educating Australians than punishing them for any indiscretion. It has been shown to be ineffective in enforcing its judgments, and the transfer of jurisdiction to the Federal Court of these matters is welcomed. It is but the first step in the planned reform of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I commend the bill to the House.