Page 548 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
answer is successive Liberal governments. Successive Liberal governments created and supported this culturally diverse society, and they do so today.
Ms Porter said she was going to go to Harmony Day on behalf of the government. Congratulations, Ms Porter. It is a Liberal Party initiative, funded since 1999 with increasing vigour by the Howard government. This is the tradition of all Liberal governments. They have built on our culturally diverse multicultural society. They do not make speeches about it and they do not crow about it. They actually do it, and that is the difference. Their actions speak so much louder than words.
What did the Whitlam government do? Michael Warby continues:
Conversely, multiculturalism was never the official policy of the Whitlam Government. It had begun to seep into government documents and reports, and Al Grassby did give a speech entitled A Multicultural Society for the Future in August 1973, but Grassby himself did not become a multiculturalist until after he ceased to be Immigration Minister. Nor did the Whitlam Government take the final step and adopt multiculturalism as a policy, though events—
to give them credit—
were moving in that direction.
There was a lot of work done in the sixties under Liberal governments to get rid of the White Australia policy, and in 1978 the Fraser government’s review of immigration laws removed all vestiges of the White Australia policy. In 1978, the then Liberal government adapted recommendation 2 of the Galbally report, which can be considered to mark the beginning of multiculturalism in Australian government policy.
The underlying principles of that policy were: equity, that is, the right of all Australians to maintain their culture without prejudice or disadvantage; the need for special services and programs for migrants and the principle of full consultation with clients to encourage migrants to become self-reliant as quickly as possible.
The real danger is that, by having silly, intellectually bereft motions that want us to endorse a word unanimously, we will trivialise the whole debate in Australia. Words change, and if this word came to mean something else 10, 20 or 30 years from now, we would be stuck with a resolution that says we cannot touch it.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (3.52): I have to say that it really is news to Mr Smyth that the word multiculturalism is a very, very important word to our multicultural community here in Canberra. In fact, Mr Smyth would have it removed from the lexicon.
Mr Smyth talked about Malcolm Fraser doing all these wonderful things because he actually wants to own the word. I do not mind if you want to embrace the word, Mr Smyth. It suits me. But it is really a coincidence, is it not, that what Malcolm Fraser buildeth, John Howard wants to taketh away. Of course, John Howard was one of Malcolm Fraser’s biggest fans. We all know that. What
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .