1995 Global Cultural Diversity Conference Proceedings, Sydney
The Evolution of the Policy of Multiculturalism in Australia 1968-95
Continued from previous page
The ACPEA report outlined the four basic principles which in the council's view are essential for a successful multicultural society: social cohesion; respect for cultural identity and awareness of Australia's cultural diversity; equal opportunity and access for all Australians; and equal responsibility for commitment to, and participation in, Australian society. So defined multiculturalism is for all Australians and applies as much to the Anglo-Australian majority as it does to other ethnic groups. At the same time, the report urged that to make multiculturalism successful "minority groups with a non-English-speaking background must not flourish on the margin and at the expense of the total Australian society, but must be orientated to it."
While formulation of the philosophical foundation for multiculturalism as an ideology reached its most comprehensive expression in the 1982 ACPEA report, much progress was being made in the development of an ever-increasing range of specific programs designed to turn multiculturalism into practice. The initial impetus was given in the 1978 Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services for Migrants (Frank Galbally, Chairman) followed by the establishment of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (1978-86) and its successor body, the Office of Multicultural Affairs (1987). There was also rapid expansion of research into immigration and ethnic problems in universities (Australian National University, Flinders, Monash, Wollongong) and in a succession of public inquiries of which two merit special mention: the Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services 1986, "Don't Settle for Less" (J. Jupp, chairman) and the Report of the Committee to Advise on Australian Immigration Policies 1988 "Immigration and Commitment to Australia" (S. Fitzgerald, Chairman).
These developments were reviewed in 1988 and 1989 by the Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs (Sir James Gobbo, chairman) and resulted in the launching of the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 1989). The agenda set out to consolidate and enhance multicultural policies and programs recognizing the problems and injustices which can occur in the process of adjustment of immigrants to their new country, in the existence of language and cultural barriers to employment and education, in gaining access to government services, and the under-utilization of qualifications learned overseas. The dimensions of the consolidated policy of multiculturalism were identified as being social justice, economic efficiency and the right of all Australians, within carefully defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural heritage. In all of these areas Government intervention was required:
The fact is that the challenges of a multicultural society do not simply resolve themselves. Government action, in the form of multicultural policies, is needed in certain areas to promote social harmony, to ensure a fair go and to harness our human resources in the most productive way for Australia's future. (National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, 1989, p.7)
Beyond Multiculturalism?
The Global Cultural Diversity Conference is taking place at the time when Australia is celebrating an important milestone in the country's history. Fifty years ago, as the war in the Pacific was coming to an end, Arthur Calwell unveiled the immigration program which was destined to change the face of Australia. Calwell's vision of Australia received bipartisan support and became one of the great international success stories of the twentieth century. For all its tribulations, mostly for the newcomers, some for the native born and old settlers, Australia's reception of its immigrants must be a source of immense pride and encouragement to us as a nation. As Sam Lipski once said:
"Despite the evidence of hostility, prejudice and discrimination displayed in some quarters towards the new arrivals, especially in the 50s and 60s, Australia's integration of the many waves of newcomers, with some minor exceptions, has been an entirely peaceful one and overwhelmingly positive. Not perfect. Positive.
There are no comparable countries of immigration where the whole process has been relatively so trouble-free." (The Australian, 31 May 1990)
The process of integration is still going apace and to date it has brought about a change in the ethnic composition of the population which has few parallels in the history of global migration movements as it occurred in the space of one-and-half generations. A comparable transformation in the United States took six generations, in Canada three. It is no accident that the first Global Cultural Diversity Conference is being held in Australia.
An essential ingredient of Australia's immigration experience has been the philosophy and practice of multiculturalism, the giving of respect to different cultures and races, a call for tolerance. At this conference we are asked to explore the essence of this term, tolerance, as we move to the stage of our development when, in the words of the principal author of the Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, Sir James Gobbo "it should no longer be necessary to underline the diversity of our origins and of our cultural backgrounds". There would appear to be, as Sir James has argued, a strong case for dropping the words "ethnic" and "multiculturalism" as transitional terms that express a conception that is no longer serviceable. If so, should we move beyond multiculturalism?
I have argued in this paper that the introduction of the term "multiculturalism" in Australia was almost accidental, an on-the-spot decision by a politician who assumed that Canadian multiculturalism, no more than a by-product of the official policy of bilingualism and biculturalism of an earlier era, would be a suitable designation for a range of programs the introduction of which he rightly considered was long overdue.
The fact that we have enjoyed high rates of immigration whilst maintaining an overwhelming ethos of tolerance points to the need to seriously consider whether we still need to use the clumsy, pompous word "multiculturalism" to celebrate the diversity of our cultural makeup. Certainly we need to employ the adjectival derivative "multicultural" to refer to the demographic reality of Australia at the turn of the century. But the polysyllabic noun "multiculturalism" has outlived its purpose. It remains ambiguous and moreover to the opponents of the non-discriminatory policy, it has been associated with all kinds of negative attitudes and incidents of political separatism such as those which surfaced during the Gulf War and over the Macedonian issue. I would argue that the motto which the Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee proposed for the year 2001, "Many Cultures. One Australia" might be a more appropriate and less ambiguous designation of Australia's multicultural ideal.
There can be no ambiguity about "Many Cultures" in the suggested motto but what about "One Australia"? Can it become a metaphor for progress and harmony in the wider world? How can it represent a victory over the divisive atavism which has cursed the human experience for so long?
My answer to these questions is centred on the notion of a multicultural society, firmly committed to a sense of tolerance and united by core institutions and values. To succeed in this lofty goal in the years leading to the new millennium and the centenary of federation, we need to examine three fundamental questions: the nature of the shared vision of what Australia might be; the proposition that not all traditions, cultures and customs are necessarily equal; and the need for maintaining balance between the principal dimensions of multicultural policy with special reference to positive discrimination.
An understanding of the form a multicultural Australia must take in the years to come must be a shared one. For cultural diversity and national cohesion to co-exist, we need to appreciate that ethnic loyalties need not detract from the wider loyalties to community and country. In a cohesive, pluralist Australia national loyalty can be built on ethnic loyalty, provided that every new settler coming to this country, as Ian Macphee once said, "must face the fact that there is a basis of our society which is English. Our language, our judicial system and our parliamentary institutions are all of English origin and are critical to the functioning of our society and provide the dominant and enduring features of it". Or, in the words of the APIC/AEAC 1979 paper quoted above, "the new (multicultural) social patterns and practices ... need not require the loss of features that are traditional and valued in Australia ...".
Thus the crucial significance of these core values, the celebration of the democratic achievements of the past one hundred years and the continuing dialogue leading to achieving reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of this country must be at the very centre of debates about the shared vision of "One Australia".
An acceptance of the pluralistic nature of Australian society carries with it one important implication, namely that governments and established institutions such as the churches, media, school systems, acknowledge the validity of ethnic cultures and respond in terms of minority group beliefs, values and customs. But this should not imply that every culture is equally valued and equally legitimate. Any debate centred on the motto "Many Cultures. One Australia" must recognize, as the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council argued in 1977, that "because some minority values are totally inconsistent with fundamental values of the dominant Australian culture (e.g. the norm that the family takes the law into its own hands to redress a wrong done to one of its members), it would be nonsense to say that multiculturalism means that every culture is equally valued and equally legitimate". Or, in the words of Gareth Evans, "Multiculturalism becomes much less defensible when one is asked to acknowledge the legitimacy of, and not interfere with, cultural practices which are manifestly coercive or oppressive for those individuals on the receiving end" (Quadrant, May 1982).
The final ingredient of the "Many Cultures. One Australia" ideal is the need for the principal dimensions of the existing multicultural policy to be kept in balance. Social cohesion, respect for and awareness of cultural identity, equal opportunity and access to the nation's resources for all Australians, and equal responsibility for commitment to and participation in Australian society, represent the key policy goals for the management of ethnic diversity and promotion of tolerance. If one of these dimensions is given more attention and financial commitment by governments at all levels, then multicultural policy is thrown out of balance. An example of this deviation from the ideal of pluralism in a liberal democracy is the scheme of grants to ethnic groups which in theory should be justified as a necessary, short-term measure of positive discrimination. The brutal reality of this and other programs of positive discrimination is that they can be abused by promoting an "ethnic" approach to minority groups, an approach which it is not too cynical to suggest has its roots in the recognition by politicians of every stripe that the "ethnic vote" is worth wooing. The effect of this approach is to emphasize the things that divide us instead of the things that bind us together.
The blatant wooing of the "ethnic vote" represents a grave distortion of the concept of multiculturalism for all Australians. It measures the success or otherwise of multicultural policies by the amount of special funds and programs directed specifically to "ethnics", irrespective of whether they lead to a cohesive or fragmented society. Multiculturalism is seen here as an instance of public policy developed for the benefit of minority groups and not as Australia's legitimate response to the demographic reality of our society in the face of the extraordinary events of the past fifty years: the doubling of the rate of population growth through immigration and the gradual elimination of discrimination on the grounds of race on immigration policy.
So the maintenance of cultural identity is not a policy that should be promoted without regard for its ramifications. Such reservations are not directed towards the concept of ethnic identity but only to the total and permanent identification of all immigrants with their respective ethnic groups. Such an approach would rule out the possibility of individual choice or of changing roles to suit different social situations.
This is not to deny, however, the need for affirmative action or positive discrimination in favour of those immigrants, individuals and groups, who justifiably need special assistance over and above the services provided to the community at large. The aim should be to ensure that all Australians irrespective of their status should be ensured equality of access to the nation's resources. But to extend this principle to the equality of outcome, a temptation facing politicians on either side of the political divide, would do great harm to the very principle of liberal democracy.
This then is the challenge that Australia faces in the International Year for Tolerance and well beyond into the future. Immigration, Arthur Calwell's brave vision of 1945, has become the most dynamic and constructive and self-renewing feature of Australian society. We need to share our country with others but also unashamedly want the talent, energy and industry of diverse groups of immigrants to help us develop a potential which is plainly abundant. The tolerance of our ethnic diversity is the principal means available to us to reach this goal.
Next: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - criticisms of multiculturalism 1
Previous: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - evolution of multiculturalism 1