Mr CIOBO (5:13 PM) —I often reflect that my immediate family is a typical example of what makes Australia the nation that it is. I have an Italian father, who immigrated to Australia with his family as a refugee shortly after the Second World War. My mother, born in North Queensland, had an English father and an Australian mother. My wife, Astra, was born an American and now enjoys dual citizenship. My family is but one small example of the heritage of this great nation. It is a heritage that has delivered peace, stability and relatively good fortune to all Australians, whether they were born on our shores or chose Australia as their new home.

Accompanying and accommodating our collective heritage is our uniquely developed Australian ethos. Commentators have coined a lexicon that embraces this ethos. Australian values shown in phrases such as `a fair go', `a fair crack of the whip' and `underdog supporters' are examples. As a cultural identity it is sometimes hard to define. However, it is quintessentially Australian to believe in a tolerant, open society. Australians have striven for a pluralist society for decades. It is a reflection of our past as a nation and an acceptance that Australians are very comfortable with cultural enclaves. Indeed, we hold a special place in our collective heart for the Chinatowns as well as for Lygon Street, Sunnybank, Footscray and Altona, to name only a few. As a nation, we have embraced yum cha, baklava, goulash and kebabs as alternatives to barbecued snags or meat pies.

For decades immigrants to Australia have recognised the promise of this country—the promise to provide a clean canvas for immigrants with the only consideration required being a commitment to being Australian. The best summary I could provide is encapsulated in the chorus of We Are Australian:

Since those words were released to the Australian public, we have absorbed them. They best define our national insight—the recognition that even though we may dress differently, eat different food or worship a different deity we are bound together by the dream of ensuring this nation remains a liberal democracy which provides reward for effort, a helping hand and, above all, a fair go.

My grievance today is that this commitment is being eroded. It is my observation that multicultural Australia is being hijacked by political correctness. The consequence of this hijacking has been the growing social divide we now witness occurring in our nation's cities. Slowly replacing our historical commitment to cultural diversity and an overarching uniformity of values are increasingly prevalent examples of the pursuit of value diversity. The social engineers of the political left reject historical Australia as fake multiculturalism. They view cultural diversity and value uniformity as only the half-measure. The Labor Party's commitment is to not only a culturally diverse but also a value diverse Australia.

Examples of the social upheaval caused through the adoption and promotion of a value diverse Australia include the frightening crime wave of pack-rapes that we have seen in Sydney's western suburbs. These were base crimes committed against Western women, perpetrated by criminals with a value set which dictates that Western girls are easy or are viewed as being sexually promiscuous. In the face of these crimes, the debate about cultural values in Australia became hot. Those on the political left sought to have the crime viewed as being no different to any other rape. Advocates for the left asserted that the moral turpitude of these crimes was no different to any other. The victims' factual accounts of racist slurs and race related verbal abuse highlighted that these crimes were not run-of-the-mill. These were crimes committed by individuals who showed no remorse for their actions. According to them, after all, the victims deserved it and were treated as they should have been.

The columnist Janet Albrechtsen appropriately and accurately classified these crimes and the value set that lay behind them as being a consequence of values diversity. She accurately highlighted the problems we see appearing in Australia because of this value diversity. Predictably, the politically correct pilloried her for daring to raise the issue. I expect certain elements to respond to this debate in a similar way. The current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Werriwa, used this chamber to publicly assail her, describing her in the most repugnant way—especially given the subject matter—as a `skanky ho'. The Labor Party and the political left may wish to see a world through the eyes of moral and cultural relativism. The promotion of values in which, for example, women are second-class citizens, Jews are morally corrupt or Western democracies are to be attacked and slain is offensive to the Australian character, to our heritage and, of course, to all Australians.

Recent comments by Australia's leading Muslim cleric, Sheikh Hilali, that the terrorist attacks of September 11 were God's work, intimations that he supported suicide bombers and support for a jihad against the West are all offensive. These comments, although disputed by the mufti as being translation errors, demonstrate a clear disdain for the pluralism from which Australia has grown and to which so many immigrants have contributed. Recent comments by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils indicate recognition of the damage done to Australia's social fabric by such disgusting remarks. Of primary concern to me and to many of my constituents, however, is the knowledge that such views are at best often excused as being a cultural difference or at worst actively promoted and supported as some kind of ridiculous testament to our cultural maturity.

This nation is founded on cultural diversity and value uniformity. Australians, whatever their origin, recognise the strength of this bedrock and join together to assert this principle. It is a principle that should require of immigrants a demonstrated commitment. Our immigration policy favours those with English language skills—those who are seeking assimilation into Australia, witnessed not through their dress, their food or their god but through their values. The politically correct may have ensured that the term `assimilation' has become a profanity. However, it is not enough for immigrants to simply alter their geography. It is our values that must be adopted, not only our freedoms. Immigration policy should require a commitment to a pluralistic Australia—an adherence to a `fair go'. Failure to demonstrate this commitment should result in expulsion.

The political left may, predictably, level the charge that I am the ghost of Enoch Powell. They are wrong. Enoch Powell was a racist. I revel in my family's history. I celebrate our nation's history and the great contribution virtually all immigrants have made and continue to make to Australia. I reject Powell's vision of nationhood. I do, however, find wisdom in one statement. Powell once argued that the nation is lived largely in the mind. This is the commitment that is sought. Australians are generous of spirit. We do not mind what your background is as long as you accept ours. Our nation should live in each of our minds through our commitment to garnering strength through cultural diversity, through testifying to our unity with the belief that all are equal and the belief in equality of opportunity and through being willing to give a hand-up. We are our own nation. Our cultural identity flows from our multicultural base; but let there be no mistake: it is not defined purely by it.