Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (15:56): I've been here for six or seven years. In politics, you get used to the opposition—and maybe it's the nature of opposition—in that they'll draw a long bow on different topics to make a point. One that springs to mind is that, even if you're increasing spending on something, they'll say things like you're cutting spending on it, to make a political point. They'll exaggerate different things. I have to say, I am actually really disappointed in the member for Scullin for bringing this MPI to parliament today. I don't think I've ever seen such a grubby suggestion. If you read this MPI, he is saying: The failure of the Government to stand up for Multicultural Australia What he is, in default, saying is that we're not standing up for a multicultural society. I think that this country—and it has been said before—is the most successful multicultural society in the world. That hasn't happened by mistake. We don't have a proud history in this. Neither side of politics has a proud history in this. Pre-World War II, if you look at both the major sides of politics, they both stood by the White Australia policy. I think we would all look back now and say that our predecessors in this sphere were far from perfect. But what we have had since World War II—and I haven't heard anything in this chamber in the six years I've been in here like this—and what I've always heard in this chamber for the last six years is bipartisan support on this issue. We have sat here and asked how we can be better. What have we done well, what are both sides of politics supporting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for Cowan and the member for Mitchell will desist with their argument across the table. Mr HOGAN: I may have missed it, but in six years I have never heard racism or multiculturalism framed in as partisan a way as it has been today. It has been worded to wedge our success and the fact that since World War II both sides of politics have been working for the same outcome. I think we have succeeded in great ways, in the fact that we are such a successful multicultural society. The way this is worded by the member for Scullin—I have a personal like for the member for Scullin, which is why this matter of public importance surprises me. What this says is a personal insult to people on this side of politics. To say that they are a member of a government that is not standing up for multicultural society is an insult, including an insult to the member for Chisholm, who's going to be up next. It's a personal insult to her to say that she is not, as a first-generation Australia, standing up for multicultural society. Again, it's very disappointing. Even the member for Cowan—Member for Cowan, what a wonderful story you tell. What a wonderful story you tell in the context of your family. I acknowledge you, I acknowledge your family and I acknowledge your wonderful story. But I too could, in a partisan way, stand here and go through the initiatives of the Menzies government, Harold Holt's government and every Liberal or National government since World War II that have made us a successful multicultural society. I acknowledge all the points you made about Whitlam and I acknowledge the points you made about Hawke and Keating—great initiatives. It's a shame that you can't see that on this side of politics, because both sides of politics have made this happen. Multiculturalism has been a very bipartisan issue for many, many decades. Again, I understand that we need to have robust debate on certain things and that we do disagree on things. I haven't seen it on the issue of national security because the major parties have tended to agree on that; in the defence of our nation and for the safety of our citizens, we tend to agree mostly on that. But this is another issue that I have never seen debated in this manner in this parliament in seven years. While we might disagree at the edges or say, 'We can do a bit here or do a bit there,' it has always been in a bipartisan manner. The member for Scullin's matter of public importance today is grubby and should stand as that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Before I call the next member, I'm just going to state that members need to direct their remarks through the chair. This is quite an emotional and emotive type of subject matter. So please direct your remarks through the chair. Let's debate this like we are the Australian parliament.