Australian Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness
3 Australian Multiculturalism: The Next steps
The Council’s terms of reference require it to recommend 'a policy and implementation framework for the next decade, that is aimed at ensuring that cultural diversity is a unifying force for Australia’.
As set out in chapter 2, the Council considers that it is essential that a proactive policy of multiculturalism continues with the objective of achieving the vision proposed by the Council of 'a united and harmonious Australia, built on the foundations of our democracy, and developing its continually evolving nationhood by recognising, embracing, valuing and investing in its heritage and cultural diversity’.
The Council also considers that, while the goals and principles that underpin multicultural policy, as articulated in the 1989 National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, have continuing relevance and importance, now is the time to reaffirm and update them.
It has done this by strongly emphasising the democratic foundations of Australian multiculturalism and identifying four principles – civic duty, cultural respect, social equity and productive diversity – that flow from this, and which incorporate the essence of the 1989 National Agenda principles.
The Council is proposing that these principles be adopted as the basis of an enhanced and refocussed multicultural policy. All programs and strategies that are developed should be validated against one or more of these principles.
Unifying force
While this report recommends a range of ways in which Australian multiculturalism should be enhanced and refocussed, the policy framework that the Council proposes for the next decade is built on the imperatives of making our cultural diversity a unifying force and of maximising the dividends of this diversity.
Central to achieving this is the inclusion of all Australians in its purview.
Recommendations that are particularly relevant to keeping cultural diversity a unifying force for all Australians include:
- recognising that multiculturalism has been built on the foundations of Australian democracy and that it is our democracy that enables it to flourish;
- stressing the need for Australian multiculturalism to require a balance between the rights and responsibilities of all 'citizens’;
- emphasising inclusiveness as a major focus for multicultural policy so that it is seen as being relevant to the interests of all sectors of the Australian community: our original inhabitants, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as well as all other Australians, whether born here or overseas and whether of English- or non-English-speaking origin;
- recommending the continued usage of the term 'multiculturalism’ but emphasising its unique Australian character, that it is the achievement of all Australians and of one combined heritage by using the prefix 'Australian’ wherever appropriate;
- defining Australian multiculturalism and recommending that the definition be explained widely to the Australian community through a communication strategy to ensure there is clarity in the understanding and use of the term;
- emphasising the value of Australian Citizenship and recommending that permanent residents who are eligible to take it up are encouraged to do so;
- linking Australian multiculturalism to our common human condition and membership of the Australian community or 'citizenship’;
- arguing that Australian multiculturalism does not deny Australian culture or identity but is derived from them and, in turn, contributes to their ongoing development;
- separating settlement programs from Australian multiculturalism so that the latter is seen as being about and for all Australians, not only migrants from a non-English-speaking background.
3.1 Multicultural funding: a good investment
Funding
One of the criticisms of multiculturalism, which was also present in several submissions to the Council, is that it costs huge sums of public money - some say several billion dollars!
Some also complain that such funding is discriminatory because, in their view, it only helps minority ethnic communities.
In the Council’s view, funding per se is not a central issue, provided justification and accountability standards are met.
Emotive arguments about funding can be a distraction from the important questions that such funding aims to address, such as how our undeniably multicultural society should build community harmony and derive the benefits of its diversity.
Multicultural programs are, after all, designed in the national interest, and funds should continue to be available to them as an investment.
The dividends are a more fair, stable and harmonious society which is also increasingly able to reap economic rewards from the domestic and international opportunities its diversity offers.
It is true that the cost of general programs can be higher when servicing a culturally diverse clientele than a homogeneous one.
There can, in fact, be multicultural aspects to the delivery of almost any government program, although it would be an extremely difficult exercise to attempt to identify and cost them fully.
The additional costs can include interpreting and translating costs but they are not always accounted for separately by departments because they are considered to be a normal part of service delivery which needs to cater to a wide range of diversity and not just cultural diversity.
The amount of costing data and analysis required to calculate the additional costs to service a culturally diverse clientele will vary from program to program and whether the effort of making the calculations has practical value, is open to question.
In any case, even if such additional costs could be isolated, it would be incorrect to attribute them to multiculturalism as they are incurred for standard service delivery.
It is also difficult to measure exactly funding that can be specifically attributed to multiculturalism because government programs often have several objectives and funding criteria.
Despite these difficulties, the Council felt it was important to achieve a clearer understanding of the funding issue where the costs are clearly attributable to multiculturalism.
The Council therefore decided to analyse the budget of the Federal Government Department that has primary responsibility for multiculturalism, namely the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA).
This analysis clearly shows that the allegations of excessive costs incurred by proactive multicultural programs are not factually based and arise out of fundamental misconceptions.
The Council believes that it is essential that the most obvious errors be urgently corrected and that the real facts disseminated as widely as possible.
The Council is confident that a more accurate understanding of the facts will go a long way towards allaying the concerns of the majority of essentially tolerant and fair-minded Australians whose negative perceptions of multiculturalism may have been influenced by their incorrect perception of its costs.
The two major errors, which greatly exaggerate the estimation of such costs, can be corrected very easily. The first arises out of lumping all immigration, settlement and multicultural programs together and attributing the total cost to multiculturalism.
Immigration costs relate to the entry and departure of foreign and Australian nationals and are not the result of multiculturalism.
In fact, the bulk of these costs would be incurred even if Australia did not have a permanent migration program because most of the administrative machinery would still be required for temporary entry and exit.
Our strong permanent migration program naturally adds to these costs because of the need to promote Australia to prospective qualified migrants as the best destination compared to other countries, who are also competing to attract them and to give those who do apply efficient and courteous service.
As pointed out earlier in this report, settlement services are also not the outcome of multiculturalism, but rather a natural consequence of our permanent migration program.
Even special costs incurred to deliver settlement programs to non-English-speaking background migrants should not be attributed to multiculturalism.
Such costs result directly from our non-discriminatory immigration policy which, based on objective selection criteria, seeks to attract migrants who will most benefit Australia, whether they come from an English- or non-English-speaking background.
Australia is, and will always be, a multicultural society, irrespective of our future immigration intake.
The Council therefore recommends that multiculturalism continues to be developed as an important and distinct priority, in addition to the continuation of settlement programs designed to accommodate the settlement requirements of new migrants.
DIMA’s budget can be divided into three broad categories: immigration, settlement and multicultural affairs.
Of the total budget of $546 million in 1998-99, the largest component, $295 million was for immigration, which includes the administration of the permanent migration program (including the refugee and humanitarian aspects of the program) as well as the management of the entry of temporary short- and long-stay visitors.
The next largest area of expenditure, involving some $149 million, covers settlement programs. Corporate management overheads account for a further $92 million which, if allocated on a pro-rata basis, would be largely attributed to the immigration and settlement functions.
The remaining amount of $10 million can be ascribed to multicultural affairs.
It amounts to only 1.8% of the DIMA budget (excluding corporate management overheads). Further information is contained in Appendix H.
The second major error that exaggerates the costs of multiculturalism arises from claims by some critics that all government services and payments that go to Australians from a non-English-speaking background should be counted as costs resulting from multiculturalism.
Included in such calculations are family allowances, health, education, social security and so on.
This allocation of costs is clearly wrong because all such services and payments are directed to the whole community, of whom some – a minority – happen to be from a non-English-speaking background.
Access to general programs by ethnic minorities is their right as Australians, not as a separate group.
To argue that all costs incurred in relation to such Australians be attributed to multiculturalism would require that, conversely, all taxes paid by them should be seen as the direct benefit of multiculturalism. Both propositions are absurd.
It is worth noting, however, that taxes paid by migrants exceed the welfare and benefits paid to them.
Further information on government assistance for migrants and refugees is found in 'question and answer’ box #5.
Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that Australian attitudes and policies on the role of government are evolving to place greater emphasis on transparency, efficiency and accountability in government programs, and on the need to achieve practical outcomes.
While the Council believes that vigorous promotion of multicultural strategies in all areas of public policy is justified and should continue, it fully accepts that all funding emanating from such strategies should be subject to the same scrutiny as all government programs.
It proposes that the main criteria by which the merits of funding for multicultural programs are assessed should be:
- need - subject to the eligibility criteria for each program, where an individual or a group has a need arising out of ethnicity or other cultural difference it ought to be met, just as all other special needs are met within our democratic social infrastructure;
- benefit to Australia - where it can be demonstrated that addressing a problem or exploiting the advantages of cultural diversity provides an economic, social or cultural benefit to Australia. This is consistent with government funding of programs in other areas designed to produce beneficial outcomes for Australia;
- social justice and equity - all programs should be adjusted to address disadvantage or loss of entitlement arising out of ethnicity or cultural differences, just as other forms of disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups relative to other Australians are addressed.
The Council recommends that proposals for new multicultural initiatives, as well as for the renewal of existing ones, are assessed against one or more of the above criteria. This will ensure that all multicultural programs are justified on objective grounds, effectively answering unfounded criticism and leading to increased public support for Australian multiculturalism.
It should be noted that the Council’s analysis and recommendations regarding funding relate to the Federal Government only.
State, Territory and Local Government funding is not within the terms of reference of the Council, although the proposed assessment criteria would probably be appropriate at all levels of government.
Next: Australian Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness - the next steps 2
Previous: Australian Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness - towards inclusiveness 7