1995 Global Cultural Diversity Conference Proceedings, Sydney
Cultural Diversity and Challenges in the Provision of Health and Welfare Services
Towards Social Justice:
Employment and Community Services in Culturally-Diverse Australia
Professor Bettina Cass AO
Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Sydney, Australia
1. Introduction
Issues of respecting and maintaining cultural diversity in multicultural Australia and debates about public policies which will embed social justice, equitable treatment and a more equitable distribution of material as well as cultural resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people of non-English speaking background can be usefully placed in the global context of the World Summit for Social Development.
The three core issues addressed by the World Summit for Social Development, namely the alleviation and reduction of poverty; the expansion of productive employment; and the enhancement of social integration are crucial for achieving sustainable social development, and for ensuring that recognition of cultural diversity goes beyond the rhetoric of tolerance to embrace a genuine and resource-driven commitment to social justice where cultural difference and socio-economic inequalities intersect (Cass and Cappo, 1995).
Australia is signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which proclaims that: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein, without distinction of any kind, in particular as to race, colour or national origin" (quoted in Moss, 1993a).
The subsequent International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination sets out both fundamental obligations and specific rights including legal and other civil rights; economic, social and cultural rights; and the right of access to places and services. These Convention rights and obligations have been given effect in Australian domestic law by being scheduled to the Race Discrimination Act 1975. However, as stated by Irene Moss, then Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner, in presenting the first State of the Nation Report on People of Non-English Speaking Background: "Australia's aim must be to fulfil not only the letter, but more importantly, the spirit of the International Conventions" (Moss, 1993, P.2).
It is the contention of this paper that the most important public policy issues for ensuring equal rights, equitable treatment and a more just distribution of resources for both indigenous Australians and those of non-English speaking background require a focus, as a matter of priority, on employment policies, on the reduction of unemployment and the integration of ethnically and culturally diverse communities into the labour market, and hence into full social citizenship. Access to well-resourced and appropriate education and employment services is the most fundamental pre-requisite to labour force integration, community participation and equitable access to other health and community services in a culturally diverse society.
2. Australia's Cultural Diversity
A statistical profile of the Australian population, using families as the unit of analysis, indicates the extent of cultural diversity in at least a quantitative way, as a base for appreciating the qualitative aspects of cultural diversity, and recognising the circumstances in which diversity interacts with aspects of socio-economic inequality. (1)
* In 1992 there were 4.7 million families in Australia, of whom 35 per cent were couples without any children living with them in the household, 52 per cent were couples with children and 13 per cent were sole parent families with children.
* There were 62 thousand families of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background counted in the 1991 Census (1.3 per cent of all families in Australia), of whom greater proportions had dependent children living with them (50 per cent) compared with non-Indigenous families (44 per cent). Indigenous families are more likely to be living in multi-family households than are non-Indigenous families, 13 per cent compared with less than 2 per cent. Also, a much higher proportion of indigenous families were sole parent families with dependent children (23 per cent), compared with non-indigenous families. Some of the reasons for this are the far higher rates of unemployment and poverty in Indigenous families, considerably higher adult death rates and high rates of male imprisonment.
* In 1991, there were 1.3 million families where either one spouse in a couple family or the sole parent was born overseas. This comprised 31 per cent of all families. Of these families, 88 per cent were couple families, 11 per cent were sole parent families, and 1 per cent were other families (such as two siblings living together). This indicates that families with an overseas born parent are somewhat less likely to be sole parent families, compared with the Australian-born. Also, families where one partner or the sole parent was born in a predominantly non-English speaking country comprised 17 per cent of all families. Households where at least one of the partners or the parent was born in the Middle East or Indochina are somewhat more likely to contain two or more families, compared with the Australian average, about 5 per cent, compared with less than one per cent (Bureau of Immigration and Population Research, 1994).
* Another aspect of family diversity which must be addressed is that of socio-economic inequality. Access to employment and adequate income is unequally distributed among Australia's families. In 1993, 17 per cent of Australian families had no parent in employment: 9 per cent of two parent families, 53 per cent of female-headed sole parent families and 30 per cent of male-headed sole parent families (ABS, 1993). These figures differ markedly according to parents' birthplace. As shown in the 1991 Census, of all two parent families with dependent children, 50 per cent had two parents in employment, almost 38 per cent had one parent employed and 12 per cent had no parent in employment. The proportion without any employment for Australian-born parents was 10 per cent, while for families with one parent born in a non-English speaking country, the proportion without employment was considerably greater. For example, between 40 to 45 per cent of families where one partner/parent is from the Middle East and Indochina, who are among the most recently arrived migrants, had no adult in employment (Bureau of immigration and Population Research, 1994). Also, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families suffer the highest rates of unemployment and long-term unemployment: according to the 1991 Census, the unemployment rate for Indigenous people at 31 per cent, was almost three times higher than the average, and 60 per cent of unemployed Indigenous people had been unemployed for more than one year. Also, labour force participation rates for indigenous people are low, resulting in almost half of people in these communities being without employment (Committee on Employment Opportunities, 1993). Sole parent families of all backgrounds are particularly disadvantaged: on average, 43 per cent of sole parents were not in the labour force in 1991, and of those who were, almost 19 per cent were unemployed. The rates of joblessness are greatest for indigenous sole parents, and those from non-English speaking backgrounds.
3. The Case for Social Justice in Multicultural Policies
Public policies in a multicultural society must respond actively to the diverse individual and family constellations which constitute Australian society and be concerned with social, cultural, economic and political inclusion. The importance of such an agenda is clarified when we consider the proportions of Australian families, in particular indigenous families, families of non-English speaking background and sole parent families, where there is no parent in employment, and the effects of this deprivation on the living standards and opportunities of children and young people. Employment and labour market policies, health and community services, housing policies and urban planning can either promote equality and inclusion or exacerbate inequality and exclusion.
The issue of respecting, tolerating and making social and cultural space for a culturally diverse population is much more than just a matter of recognising and celebrating cultural diversity.
"Recognition is an essential first step in gaining a full understanding of Australian family life, but unless that understanding is translated through policy into real improvements in the lives of all Australians, there is no cause for celebration" (Hartley and McDonald, 1994; p.12).
Participants in consultations held in 1994 in urban, rural and regional Australia by the National Council for the United Nations International Year of the Family acknowledged the rich contribution made by the ethnically and culturally diverse constellation of individuals and families to Australia's cultural, linguistic and religious heritages (National Council for the International Year of the Family, 1994). In addition, many submissions received by the National Council called for more representation and dissemination within the community of the inherent value of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity.
Having said this, there are individuals and families in Australia whose needs are great, and who, because of a history of limited access to economic, social and political resources, have not benefited equitably from the general distribution of employment, income and services. Submissions from individuals and community organisations, in addition to recent research, indicates that, due to a history of discrimination, exclusion, or overwhelming economic inequality, the circumstances of families in particular communities require a policy focus not only on equal access to services and amenities, but even more fundamentally, on policies which much better distribute the material resources of education, employment, training and secure income which ensure self-determination and full community participation.
Despite Australia's well-deserved reputation in establishing and recognising cultural diversity and introducing legislation which attempts to embed tolerance of cultural diversity in the economic, cultural and social practices of Australian life, there is little doubt that decision-making power continues to be dominated in the parliaments, in the government administrative bureaucracies and particularly in the structures of employment, by Anglo-Australians (Moss, 1993a).
To give only one example where it matters most for establishing and maintaining an adequate standard of living for individuals and their families, gaining access to secure employment, those groups most affected by industrial restructuring and high levels of unemployment are migrants of non-English speaking background in the early years of settlement (Bureau of Immigration and Population Research, 1994), and particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Altman and Daley, 1994).
According to Census data for 1991, indigenous people over the age of 15 were much less likely to be employed than were all Australians, 37.1 per cent compared with 55.6 per cent, and their unemployment rate, at 30.8 per cent, was almost three times as high as the unemployment rate for all Australians, at 11.6 per cent (Altman and Daley, 1994).
Using the same Census data, it is apparent that the overall labour market experience of people born in non-English speaking countries reflects considerably more disadvantage than that of the Australian born or those born in English speaking countries. The unemployment rates for people in the most recent waves of migration from the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Indo-China were considerably higher than the Australian average, ranging up to three times as high. Further, while unemployment falls with longer periods of Australian residence, even in older age groups where migrants of longer periods of residence are likely to be located, unemployment rates are higher for the overseas-born than for the Australian-born (Moss, 1993a).
It is clear that access to employment and secure, adequate income are the necessary bases of access to community services, cultural and social amenities, and equitable participation in local communities and political life. This paper will address these issues, drawing upon evidence collected in the course of the consultation program undertaken by the National Council for the United Nations International Year of the Family in 1994, and published, in conjunction with recommendations, in the Council's Final report to the Commonwealth Government, Creating the Links: Families and Social Responsibility (1994).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities
Redressing the economic and social disadvantages and outright cultural and material harm perpetrated against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has been recognised in recent public policy developments as an urgent priority. Colonisation and decades of destructive social policies have had a devastating effect on traditional indigenous family life, resulting in a history of separation of many indigenous Australians from their land, their families, their culture, traditions and their spirituality. The policy-driven removal of children from families, in some parts of Australia until the 1970s, the resultant separation of siblings, dispossession of land, racism and discrimination, disproportionately high levels of imprisonment and deaths in custody, very high rates of unemployment, poor access to health services, to adequate and appropriate housing and physical infrastructure, and to community services are experiences that have severely challenged the survival of indigenous culture and family life (Dodson, 1994; ABS, 1995).
However, the resilience and strength of indigenous families in the face of such disadvantage have been crucial in the ongoing survival and transference of indigenous identity, heritage and culture across generations.
For indigenous people to be adequately supported in these endeavours, a process of reconciliation has been put in place and seen as essential to the redress and rectification of injustice. In this light, it has become increasingly clear that planning and delivery of a whole range of services for indigenous people must occur within an environment of comprehensive consultation with the communities concerned, in order to provide a sustainable and long term economic base and self-determination for indigenous Australians.
It was stated in community consultations conducted by the National Council for the International Year for the Family that indigenous communities require support in developing initiatives that seek to promote and sustain much better living standards, quality of life, identity, culture and appreciation of heritage, particularly for the benefit of indigenous children and young people.
The Mabo decision in the High Court, the Native Title Act (1993), the establishment of the Land Fund to enable indigenous people who are not able to establish native title to their traditional land to buy land, and the policy of indigenous/non-indigenous Australians' reconciliation have provided the framework for consultative policy-making which focuses on the material bases of land acquisition, education, training, jobs, primary health care and appropriate housing which are essential to ground cultural diversity in a more equitable and just distribution of resources.
Communities of Non-English Speaking Backgrounds
"Australia is unique in its cultural diversity. We have a population whose background embraces well over 100 distinct cultures, and a population which speaks over 140 different languages, and more when indigenous languages are taken into account" (Moss, 1993b, quoted in Keating, 1994a).
Increasingly, bilingualism is recognised as being both a valuable personal asset and contributor to family cohesion, as well as being of great value to the economic and social development of Australian society. As such, language is an important part of developing a sense of cultural and personal identity, with many parents from non-English speaking backgrounds encouraging children to maintain the language of their heritage. However, as English remains the language of education and the labour market, proficiency in English remains central to secure job opportunities, and to participation in a range of community and political contexts where decisions which affect well-being and living standards are made.
A high proportion of individuals and families from non-English speaking backgrounds are disadvantaged, as a result of unemployment in the early years of settlement, remaining, but to a lesser extent, through other parts of the life course as manifested in higher levels of unemployment and labour force marginality than for the overall population (Moss, 1993a; ABS Queensland, 1994). Further, cultural diversity is not adequately represented in a range of social institutions, from stereotypical portrayals in the mass media, through to under-representation in the various levels of government, and in the upper levels of secure employment (Moss, 1993a).
It is the contention of this paper that the most compelling issue for public policy in a multicultural society is adequate and sustained public and private sector investment which increases employment and reduces unemployment, since it is in this context that cultural diversity can be given a thorough base in more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Concentration only on cultural issues, or policies of access and equity in a range of services, while necessary, are hollow while adverse labour market circumstances are experienced disproportionately by Indigenous people and by migrants of non-English speaking background, or while high levels of unemployment and long-term unemployment militate against the processes of social cohesion and integration.
Next: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - Health and Welfare Services 2
Previous: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - Health, Welfare and Diversity