Dr NELSON (1:27 PM) —I am quite comfortable about speaking in support of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you represent the electorate of Lyons. You represent many people who are unemployed; you represent a lot of blue-collar workers from the timber industry, the mining industry and primary industry; you represent people who are trying to survive on the land; and you represent people who struggle to find their next mortgage payment, to pay the next payment on their car and who worry about their kids getting a decent education and what kind of future they are going to have.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you were also part of a government that, whilst it did many good things, failed Australia in two ways. It failed us by allowing us to finance essential social infrastructure on debt and asset sales rather than on income, but your government also failed us because it allowed many of us, people in my generation especially—people who benefited from an education, people who felt secure in their jobs—to become a selfish generation. We became far more concerned about our rights than our responsibilities and our concern for others.

A lot of things done by the previous government were financed by the hard work of low income Australians, many of whom you represent. The previous government actually funded some bureaucracies that were very well intended and very well based but, frankly, lost their way. It seemed that the government was more concerned about the top-heavy nature of things like the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission than about unemployed timber workers in your electorate.

The bill seeks to do a number of things. It seeks to rename the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission, to remind us, amongst other things, that we cannot have rights without also having responsibilities, that sometimes we need to think about others as well as ourselves.

It also seeks to restructure the new commission, to abolish the five specific commissioners responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice, human rights, disability, race and sex discrimination, and replace them with three deputy presidents with responsibility for human rights and disability discrimination, racial discrimination and social justice, and sex discrimination and equal opportunity.

HREOC's broad objectives are to promote respect for and observance of human rights. It is also responsible for the administration of the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination regime: the Race Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Privacy Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act. Central to its current functions are handling and conciliation of complaints that are made to it, re search into systemic forms of discrimination, education, advocacy and advising government on legislation that affects human rights and discrimination issues.

It has also become the vehicle through which law seeks to give effect to Australia's egalitarian principles and aspirations. In that sense, it is very important that many low-middle and low income Australians, who work so hard to finance this, do not lose sight of the fact that it actually is a vehicle for giving effect to the things that we value as being uniquely Australian principles.

Between 1997 and 1999, HREOC's budget was reduced from $19.3 million to $12.3 million. But it is important that honourable members on the other side remember that HREOC's growth over the past decade has been disproportionate to that in other areas of government. In fact, over the past nine years, funding increased from $4 million to in excess of $20 million, a 500 per cent increase. It is not that that is necessarily something to be criticised, but it was at a time when other things that many Australians considered to be important were either underfunded or not funded at all. Budgetary changes are also a reflection of restructuring of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's functions set out in the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 .

The bill is the result of a detailed examination by the government of the structure and operations of the commission. The government's examination found that the current structure of the commission is in many ways inefficient and top-heavy. It does not always operate in the best interests of the entire Australian community. In addition, there exists a perception that the commission has become too focused on protecting those sections of the community for whom a specific commissioner exists, often to the detriment perhaps of other disadvantaged or vulnerable sections of society. The new structure, in which three deputy presidents with more general responsibilities will replace five of the existing portfolio specific commissioners, will address these concerns while fully maintaining the protection afforded to all Australians under federal anti-discrimination laws.

The government does recognise, however, that specialist commissioner positions have provided a desirable focus for policy development, research and expertise in the individual portfolio areas. The new structure of three deputy presidents with support from specialist units within the staff of the commission will allow the commission to continue its work in these areas without the current overlap and duplication in work and administration. The new structure is also likely to allow for the development of expertise in new areas without needing to appoint portfolio specific commissioners for each of those areas.

The government is actually quite confident that the commission's new structure will enable it to work in a more streamlined, cooperative and cohesive manner and to make better and more efficient use of its resources. The new structure will also allow for the development of a more outward looking organisation, protecting everyone's rights and promoting awareness of our responsibilities to each other, while still maintaining areas of specialist expertise. The new structure will also help the commission to contribute to the further enhancement of Australia's already enviable reputation as a world leader in the protection and the promotion of human rights.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of publications of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The first is entitled The International Role of Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, published in January 1997. It says:

Australia has a human rights record in which we can justly take pride. This does not say that it is perfect, not by any means. The history of the two centuries of European settlement in Australia reveals the most flagrant violations of the human rights of Australia's original peoples and their descendants. There are other examples of where we have failed: the White Australia policy that persisted for almost 70 years after Federation; the continuing under-representation of women in positions of responsibility and influence in the community; the denial of the rights of lesbians and gay men; discrimination on the basis of disability; times when our international relations have favoured trade over human rights and so on. Nonetheless, we can take pride in what Australia has achieved: a predominantly tolerant pluralistic society with a high level of respect for people and general recog nition that each individual is entitled to certain inalienable rights and freedoms.

It goes on to say:

Human rights are also a central part of our vision for the international political and legal system. For that reason from the beginning of international human rights law, Australia has been a strong supporter of the development of the legal framework and legal mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights.

It concludes by saying:

These are policies supported by all Australian political parties in the Federal Parliament.

Australia today is a different country from what it was before 13 June this year. It is also a different country from perhaps what it was three years ago—some would say, I would argue, better; others would say perhaps not. But what is important is that I do not know whether we could say today that all the political parties in this parliament would support the proposition that these policies on human rights ought to be supported. There is one party here that, if it does, has not yet declared it—and that is One Nation—and may in fact not be supportive of these.

One of the other critical issues that Australians have become concerned about which evolved predominantly under the previous federal government is that of multiculturalism. This is a term that has been abused, misrepresented, misunderstood and has become the subject of often heated and hostile debate. If any of my constituents in Bradfield are listening to this and feel that they have a hostile attitude to multiculturalism, I think they ought to hear what multiculturalism actually is as defined in Face the Facts, which was produced by the Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner in 1997:

Multiculturalism is a policy based on rights and responsibilities, which has been endorsed by Australian governments for managing a unified nation which is culturally diverse. The policy of multiculturalism replaced the previous official policy of assimilation.

There are important overriding principles of multiculturalism which can be summarised in the following way, and those who might be attracted to the views of the leader of One Nation, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), particularly ought to listen to this:

The first is loyalty to Australia, first and foremost in multiculturalism. All Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia's interests and future first and foremost. The second tenet of multiculturalism is this: acceptance of the Australian system. All Australians are required to accept the basic structures and principles of Australian society: the constitution, Australian laws, tolerance, equality, democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language and equity of the sexes.

I suspect there were quite a few people that went out to vote for One Nation in the recent Queensland election who would not disagree with that statement, nor indeed the one about loyalty to Australia. The quote continues:

The third is mutual respect. All Australians have the right to express their culture and beliefs, and this involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and their values. Multiculturalism is about the inclusion and recognition within the principles enshrined above. It recognises the right of all Australians to enjoy their cultural heritage, including language and religion.

How many Australians, if they were to migrate to another country, would want to arrive in that country as immigrants and completely repudiate and forget their Australian culture and background? I for one would not wish to be that way. The quote continues:

The right to equal treatment and opportunities for everyone, regardless of their backgrounds. Multiculturalism also aims to ensure maximum use of the skills and talents of all Australians to assist economic efficiency.

In this House, in making comments about the member for Oxley and the support that she has attracted, amongst other things I have said that my concern has been that the member for Oxley appeals to a dark side that is in all human beings, from Mother Teresa down. All of us have a part of us that resents people or things we perhaps do not understand or we do not want.

And there is another side of it that is called one's conscience, I suppose, which in your best self you know what is the right thing to do. In latter years, doing the right thing, as it used to be called—I think that is what my mother used to call it—has become known as political correctness, and this has become the subject of some derision. I think one of the criticisms levelled particularly by working Australians towards the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is that very good intentions in the form of legislation have been seen at times to have gone too far.

I saw Reverend Fred Nile on television last week debating Mr David Oldfield, who is the chief adviser to the member for Oxley. Mr Oldfield was denying that One Nation had a racist agenda or, indeed, racist overtones. Reverend Nile said, `Well, you touched the buttons. You are touching the buttons that unleash this kind of behaviour and this kind of thought,' and he is right. I have received some correspondence recently because I, several weeks ago publicly in my local paper, said that unless the Adolf Hitler party was running in Bradfield One Nation would be last on my how-to-vote card if the Liberal Party wished me to be its candidate in Bradfield, and I pointed out why.

I received some correspondence which I would like to read to the House. I will not name the correspondents. They did sign their names. I have checked that they are in fact constituents. The first reads:

Mr Nelson,

I read your "anti-white racist" slurs levelled against the only ardent patriotic politician we have in Australia today, (namely PAULINE HANSON) and I must say how interesting to see and hear all the "TRAITORS" like yourself coming out in defence of the violent, drug smuggling and dealing, "Asian slime" that has been brought into our once peaceful country by the despicable Labour government of the MONGRELS KEATING, HAWKE, BONK-US, EVANS, WHITLAM, GRASSBY, and now the ultimate "TURNCOAT" and "TRAITOR" "LITTLE JOHNNY JACKBOOT HOWARD and yourself?

Because of this volatile, "explosive" mixture of ALIENS, we now have in this country a crime and violence outbreak unparalleled in Australia's history, with Asian "GANGS" being formed to intimidate and harass, and attack decent, clean-living white citizens with their home INVASIONS, drug smuggling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, rape, prostitution, theft, robberies etc. The POMPOUS DO-GOODERS and POLITICAL CORRECT like yourself obviously want this "crime wave" and "ethnic CONFLICT" to escalate and continue, which makes you just another scumbag of a politician we will have to have "REMOVED" at the next election by voting for PAULINE HANSON.

The only reassuring part of this letter is that the correspondent says that he will never vote for me. The second letter—and I have had a number like this—came from a lady in Gordon, in my electorate. I will not read the whole letter:

Dear Mr Nelson,

I take exception to your editorial in last week's North Shore Times on Pauline Hanson.

Regrettably, you are now speaking the same politically correct bullshit which Mr Howard & Mr Beazley speak. People voted for One Nation not as a protest vote but simply because she is the only politician to have the guts to speak out.

. . . . . . . . .

Times are changing &, regrettably, your views & those of your Labor colleagues will be left behind as more & more people see through the politically correctness. Pauline may be ignorant, naive & uneducated & her candidates may have dubious pasts but her message is clear & she would get huge support in a secret ballot in Bradfield.

Amongst other things, when I write to this constituent I will inform her that we already have secret ballots.

The point that ought to be made is that we all enjoy the right to freedom of speech, and it is something that is defended by all of us. But the right to freedom of speech and its responsible exercise has not ever extended to the right, wittingly or otherwise, to make any section of society feel demeaned, denigrated or alienated.

Equally, Dick Smith recently made a point in relation to mean-spiritedness, the same point which the previous speaker, the member for Banks (Mr Melham), made in reference to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). All I can say is that those who describe the Prime Minister as mean-spirited do not know the man—as distinct from our leader. Dick Smith was making the point that, for One Nation and those who subscribe to that view, it is all one way. It is all self-interest. It is bemoaning what other people have got and are getting rather than asking what you can do for another human being or what you can do for your country. That was confirmed in the debate between Mr Oldfield and Reverend Fred Nile on the Today show when Mr Oldfield, in speaking of Australia's contribution to the United Nations, said, `It is all a one-way street. We give and we don't seem to get anything out of it.'

I do not give money to the Salvation Army because of what I am going to get out of it. I do not want to live in a country where we turn our backs on the United Nations, where we do not send money in the form of foreign aid. I do not want us to be a nation that does not contribute to humanitarian peacekeeping work in other parts of the world. I certainly hope we do not become a nation where we are in need of receipt of it. I have found in life that, if you want to measure the strength of human beings and of nations, it can be measured in terms of the care, concern and compassion that is shown for those who are in need and whose needs are greater than your own.

Many of those Australians, and some of them my constituents, who feel attracted to the views espoused by the member for Oxley and One Nation fail to appreciate that what they are suggesting is just that and that that is where many of their policies are leading. My observation of human beings is that most, if not all, of life's misery and pain comes from people making themselves the centre of their own lives. Whether we are preoccupied with our own rights or whether we are a kind of political party—I refer to One Nation—or a kind of nation that says, `We do not want to help those whose needs are greater than our own,' we are causing misery and pain.

We also need to remember that earlier this century we went to war to fight tyranny—and tyranny that had evolved on the shoulders of exploiting the disenfranchised, the poorly educated and those who felt that others were getting more than them. If we allow ourselves to follow public opinion, we will create those very circumstances in our own country. (Time expired)