The former Labor Government's vision of Australia's multicultural
future, as embodied in its Our Nation statement, indicates
a doctrinaire emphasis on cultural diversity and an aggressive
assertion of ethnic criteria in the distribution of government-controlled
employment opportunities and resources.
Our Nation - released in January 1996 - represents the former Labor Government's vision of Australia's multicultural future and its strategy for managing Australia's culturally diverse population. The document endorses most of the recommendations of the National Multicultural Advisory Council, which was appointed by Senator Bolkus, the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in 1993. The Council's task was to review the existing National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia (issued in 1989) and to recommend changes in the light of outcomes since 1989. This it did in a report entitled The Next Steps: Multicultural Australia, Towards and Beyond 2000 issued in June 1995 (hereafter Next Steps).1
Our Nation has received little analysis in the mainstream media. This is a pity. The vision and policies it presents have serious implications for all Australians, and not just the small minority who identify as ethnics. Most Australians would be surprised to learn how far Australia has gone down the path of 'ethnic proportionalism', that is, the allocation of positions on the basis of ethnicity. If implemented by the new Coalition Government, Our Nation will entrench the trend. First, it demands a more aggressive propagandisation of the ideal of cultural diversity than was evident in the National Agenda it replaces and, second, it proposes a more intrusive insertion of ethnic criteria into the ways in which positions and resources are allocated in Australia than hitherto. In the 1980s, the Government's priority was the removal of language and cultural barriers experienced by migrants from non-English-speaking-background (NESB) countries in accessing government services and in competing on equal terms for employment with other Australians. More recently the focus has been on equal outcomes, enforced by prescribed shares of jobs and resources for NESB people.
Labor's more aggressive stance on multicultural issues, culminating in Our Nation, can be traced in part to Mr Keating's decision to leave this policy arena to the two Federal Labor politicians most identified with the ethnic community lobby, Senator Nick Bolkus and Andrew Theophanous. The former was given the Immigration and Ethnic Affairs portfolio in March 1993, along with considerable influence on multicultural affairs through his role as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on such issues. Bolkus has virtually directed the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) - the main government agency addressing multicultural policy. Theophanous was given the carriage of OMA's most important program function in 1994 - the management of the Government's Access and Equity (A&E) program. Theophanous conducted extensive 'community' consultation on A&E issues in 1994 and his office prepared much of the material subsequently published by OMA in the 1994 and 1995 Access and Equity Annual Reports. These Reports were important precursors to the focus on equal outcomes in Our Nation.
Why was the Keating Government prepared to embrace a tougher line on multicultural issues? Perhaps it was anxiety about the alleged 'ethnic vote'. If so, the Government is likely to be disappointed, since it is doubtful whether many NESB migrants support either the promotion of cultural diversity or the focus on prescribed ethnic outcomes. I explore the reasons for this lack of support before examining the details of the Our Nation decisions.
MIGRANT ATTITUDES TO MULTICULTURALISM
The views embodied in Our Nation undoubtedly reflect the concerns of organised ethnic community opinion in Australia. But this opinion is dominated by a small minority within the NESB migrant population. The ethnic movement attracts some people of migrant background who feel they are not accepted in Australia on account of their ethnic origins. These people include many Southern Europeans, whose limited English and industrial skills on arrival in Australia meant that they were initially segregated into low-skill, low-status work situations. Some of the low status associated with their jobs rubbed off on to a general disparagement of their migrant origins. Migrants affected by these assessments have an understandable interest in seeing Australia redefined as a multicultural society in which Greek and Italian-Australians, amongst others, have an honoured place. The ethnic movement also appeals to those who are deeply committed to the culture or religion of their homelands, like some Jews and Moslems, and who want government help in maintaining their community against assimilationist pressures. Finally there is small core of ethnic community leaders, administrators and intellectuals who have created careers for themselves as ethnic activists.
But these concerns have limited appeal even to the rank and file of the Greek-Australian and similar ethnic communities. Anyone who has observed the annoyance of people who have lived in Australia a long time but are still referred to as 'migrants' or 'ethnics' will have an inkling as to why. Most migrants' main interest is to be accepted as fellow Australians and to feel that they 'belong' here. This is especially so in the workplace, where it is crucial that they be able to progress without any impediments associated with their migrant background. For most, the main priority is to be treated on the same terms as locals. Any reference to ethnicity cuts across this objective.
We have come a long way since the 1950s in burying the nastier
stereotypes associated with 'ethnic' status. The great majority
of native-born Australians now believe that it is improper to
devalue migrants or to discriminate against them on account of
their cultural or national origins. It follows that those migrants
who make the effort to meet the expectations of the host community
are likely to gain the social acceptance they aspire to. This
helps to explain the disconcerting finding (from the point of
view of ethnic advocates) that many members of their communities
do not share the priorities of their 'leaders'.
Opinion poll data
The point can be made directly through public opinion poll data collected on behalf of the Government itself. I refer to two surveys, the first commissioned by OMA in 1988 prior to the preparation of the 1989 National Agenda, and the second in 1994, also commissioned by OMA, this time to assist in preparing the Next Steps. The former was circulated to interested parties. Bits of the latter were published in the Sydney Morning Herald (June 4, 1994) but the more important parts remain unpublished. The full report of the 1994 survey was made available to me by OMA.
Table 1: Opinions on the importance of an Australian identity in 1988. Responses to the question: 'How important is Australian in describing who you are? Is it....?' (percentages) | ||||
| Very important
Fairly important Not too important Not at all important Not stated Don't know | 56.1
27.3
11.5 4.8 0.2 0.1 | 49.1
33.5
14.0 3.2 0.2 - | 55.7
27.2
12.3 4.3 0.1 0.5 | 39.7
34.4
17.8 7.8 0.1 0.2 |
| Total | 100.0
(1,552) | 100.0
(823) | 100.0
(986) | 100.0
(1,141) |
| a First generation non-English-speaking background
b arrivals 1981-1988 Source: Issues in Multicultural Australia, OMA, 1988 | ||||
Table 2 Opinions on how to live in Australia in 1988. Responses to the statement: 'People who come to Australia should change their behaviour to be more like other Australians' (percentages) | ||||
| Agree very much | 33.0 | 21.9 | 40.8 | 34.2 |
| Agree a little | 33.1 | 32.6 | 25.8 | 29.1 |
| Disagree a little | 20.4 | 24.2 | 20.6 | 22.7 |
| Disagree very much | 13.3 | 21.3 | 12.2 | 13.6 |
| Don't know/not stated | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| Total | 100.0
(1,552) | 100.0
(823) | 100.0
(986) | 100.0
(1,141) |
| a First generation non-English-speaking background
b arrivals 1981-1988 Source: Issues in Multicultural Australia, OMA, 1988 | ||||
The 1988 research covered samples from the following groups of Australians aged 15 and over: NESB migrants; NESB migrants who arrived in Australia after mid-1981; second-generation persons born in Australia but with one or both parents born in an NESB country; and a general sample of the Australian population (74 per cent of whom were Australian born). In total, 4,700 people were interviewed. The migrants surveyed did not show much interest in ethnic community matters. Two thirds of both the NESB and second-generation groups indicated that they did not identify with any ethnic group, nor did 44 per cent of the recently-arrived NESB group. On the other hand when asked how important being an 'Australian' was in describing who they were, as indicated in Table 1, the great majority said it was very important or fairly important.
Another striking result was their response to the statement 'people who come to Australia should change their behaviour to be more like other Australians'. The majority of both the general sample and the migrant groups agreed with this assimilationist proposition (see Table 2). These views oppose both the official Government and ethnic leadership positions. But, from the individual migrant's point of view, the urgency of winning acceptance within the Australian community makes such opposition understandable.
When the 1989 National Agenda was published these responses were conveniently ignored. We find much the same pattern with the Next Steps. The poll preceding this report was far more limited - but nevertheless it delivered equally striking results. It was taken by the Age pollster, Irving Saulwick, in May and June 1994. Saulwick put four questions to a national sample of 1000 voters. One asked if Australia was a tolerant society, another whether people should be criticised if they mixed mainly within their own ethnic group and a third whether the respondent thought Australia a better or worse place 'now that people from so many countries live here'. In each case the responses were at the tolerant end of the spectrum. Still, there was a rather truculent 28 per cent minority who were prepared to tell the telephone interviewer that Australia was now a worse place (29 per cent of all Australian born and 20 per cent of overseas born).
The fourth question, detailed in Table 3, tapped a different vein. It asked, 'which of these statement comes closest to your view':
Table 3: Opinions on how migrants should live in Australia, by education and birthplace1994 (%) | |||||||||
technical | |||||||||
| Respect different ways of living
Migrants should live like the majority Don't know, no answer | 72.6
27.4 - | 14.2
71.0 14.8 | 19.8
77.3 2.9 | 27.4
68.3 4.3 | 28.1
66.9 5.1 | 57.6
39.0 3.4 | 34.4
61.6 4.0 | 38.6
57.1 4.2 | 85.7
14.3 - |
| Total respondents % (No.) | 100.0
(23) | 100.0
(30) | 100.0
(236) | 100.0
(268) | 100.0
(142) | 100.0
(301) | 100.0
(845) | 100.0
(146) | 100.0
(6) |
| Source: Irving Saulwick and Associates, 31 May 1994 | |||||||||
The question appears to be designed to distinguish multiculturalists from assimilationists. However, the latter option is put in an aggressive form. The reference to 'migrants should learn' has a doctrinaire flavour which implies a strict assimilationist intent. The multicultural option is phrased in warmer terms, using the words 'welcome and respect' which again implies that those rejecting it are rather disdainful of different ways. There is also no reference to whether the 'different ways' are to persist over a short adjustment period or to be reproduced in the next generation. Nevertheless, 62 per cent of Australian-born respondents and 57 per cent of the overseas-born favoured the assimilationist option. On this issue, attitudes do not appear to have changed since 1988. (For further details see pp. 65-6 this issue.)
Next Steps does acknowledge that respondents favoured the assimilationist response, but it does not divulge that they were given a warm 'multicultural' alternative. The Committee concludes that though there is 'some uncertainty and ambivalence about the concept [multiculturalism] there appears reasonably widespread support for the underlying principles of multicultural policy'.2
This a grossly misleading conclusion. The only segment of Australia
society about which one could confidently make this claim is the
university educated. As can be seen from Table 3, there is a vast
gulf between their majority support for the multicultural position
and the sharp opposition from almost all non-tertiary educated
Australians.
THE OUR NATION AGENDA
The promotion of cultural diversity
In the late 1970s, ethnic community leaders succeeded in persuading the Commonwealth Government to officially redefine Australia as a multicultural society. The prime motivation then, as it remains today, was to enhance the status of persons of ethnic origin. The message this redefinition transmitted was essentially symbolic: that ethnic communities and their cultures should be a valued and respected part of Australian life. What is new about the recent advocacy is its more doctrinaire and proselytising tone. The authors of the Next Steps want the Government to incorporate 'multicultural principles in any proposed revision of the Australian Constitution'. Any new flag should also incorporate in its design 'the realities of our culturally diverse yet inclusive society'. To convince the waverers, the authors recommend that the Commonwealth Government should 'undertake a mainstream media information campaign to explain multiculturalism'. The goals of this campaign should include:
(1) sensitisation of the Australian community to the benefits for all Australians of multiculturalism,
(2) greater appreciation of the contribution that different migrant and indigenous groups have made to our national development.3
Further, the Report recommends that the Government should instruct the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), the commercial media, and educational institutions to join in this campaign. In the case of the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), to ensure compliance, management should be instructed to provide annual reports which 'specify the extent to which Australian cultural diversity is reflected in their programming'.4 This is a reasonable demand if it means that broadcasters give due attention to Australia's non-Anglo population. The danger lies in the implied directive to deliver prescribed doses of 'cultural diversity' regardless of the context or the views of the Australian audience, most of whom would probably prefer to de-emphasise ethnic differences. The recommendations also imply a one-sided emphasis on the benefits of multiculturalism. This has serious implications for any independent treatment of migration issues.
The former Labor Government's response in Our Nation to
these proposals was equivocal. It supported the rewriting of the
Constitution, the redesign of the flag, the suggested media campaign
to promote the benefits of multiculturalism, as well as the involvement
of the ABC, commercial broadcasters and educators in this campaign,
but it did so only 'in principle'. In this instance, the Government
appears to be aware that an openly propagandist stance on multiculturalism
may be electorally unpopular.
The use of ethnic criteria in the pursuit of social justice
During the post-1983 Labor era, ethnic community advocates have successfully added a social justice element to multiculturalism. Theophanous puts the point succinctly.
The original [Fraser era] definition of multiculturalism had failed to recognise the full economic, political and social rights of people from migrant and/or non-English-speaking backgrounds. It followed that multiculturalism would not be an effective policy unless it was increasingly directed towards recognising that, throughout Australia's migrant history, a large proportion of people from a non-English-speaking background had been denied equal social, economic and political opportunities.5
The addition of social justice criteria to the multicultural agenda
has enabled advocates to move beyond claims for respect. They
could now demand power, position and resources commensurate with
their numbers and the nature of their alleged disadvantage. The
case of these advocates has been strengthened by association with
the parallel feminist and Aboriginal movements, both of which
are high order priorities amongst Labor party elites. But during
the Labor era there has been a crucial switch in the way these
social justice claims for migrants have been expressed. The initial
focus was on removing language and cultural barriers to government
services and positions. By the 1990s the emphasis had switched
from equal access to equal outcomes, based on claims that NESB
people should receive a share of jobs and resources in proportion
to their numbers.
Accommodating NESB
social justice claims
The A&E program, initiated in 1985, represented the main initial response to the social justice claims. All Commonwealth Departments were required to develop programs designed to ensure NESB migrants were able to access their services free of language and cultural barriers. Ethnic-specific services were not encouraged.
However, in the 1990s ethnic advocates have urged a greater emphasis on measured 'outcomes', on the grounds that NESB clients remain disadvantaged and that some Government departments have not taken the A&E task seriously. This emphasis is apparent in the 1994 and 1995 A&E annual reports issued by the coordinating agency, the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Theophanous, who as noted earlier, conducted the ethnic community consultations leading up to the 1994 report, indicates that as a result of critical comments from communities:
Senator Bolkus and I determined that the Access and Equity Strategy should become a much more action-orientated program. In the past, the Strategy tended to rely on the testaments of the Commonwealth departments themselves as to their achievements in the area of Access and Equity. The focus is now on outcomes.6
Departments are now encouraged to target their programs to particular ethnic communities and, if necessary, develop ethnic-specific services. In so doing they can show a measurable 'outcome' for their ethnic clients. For example, the Department of Human Services and Health is currently developing proposals for aged care and residential care programs tailored to the needs of individual ethnic communities in consultation with representatives of these communities.7
The emphasis on outcomes means that all Departments must keep records of the numbers of their ethnic clients and of the outcomes of the service provided to this ethnic clientele. Public servants are provided with guide books on how to keep ethnic records, including Diversity Counts, A Handbook on Ethnicity Data, published by OMA in 1994. Officials are also required to consult with ethnic community leaders in determining the delivery of their service.
These requirements have helped justify an increased involvement of ethnic leaders in the decision making process since, if Departments are to respond to the distinctive needs of their ethnic clients, they must find intermediaries capable of interpreting these needs. The former Labor Government has since moved to make this a firm directive. In preparing the 1995 A&E annual report the OMA commissioned a study of the ethnic make up of government boards and advisory bodies. Only 41 of the 84 bodies consulted responded, but those that did reported an overall representation of NESB people and Aboriginals of around five per cent.8 Building on the these data, the Next Steps recommended that the government 'take cultural diversity into account in appointments to advisory bodies and government positions in all areas of public sector management'. The Labor Government took this a step further in its Our Nation statement. Henceforth, firm ethnic targets are to be put in place. The decision was that:
To better reflect the cultural diversity of Australian society and broaden participation in decision-making, the Government will increase the percentage of non-English speaking background and indigenous Commonwealth appointees on its boards and advisory bodies, setting a target figure of 15% for the year 2000.9
The trend is clear. Ethnicity is becoming an increasingly important factor in the determination and provision of government services. But it does not stop there. Ethnic advocates are now claiming on social justice grounds that NESB people should receive a proportional share of positions throughout the public and private sectors.
The Next Steps implies that, wherever the NESB share of positions as elected officials, policemen, judges, directors and senior managers of companies falls short of the NESB proportion of the population, action should be taken to increase this share.10
The Report puts this view as a 'vision', rather than an explicit
recommendation. There is therefore no explicit Government response
in Our Nation. But the Government has already moved well
down the path towards ethnic targets. It has mandated such targets
for the Public Service, Commonwealth statutory authorities and,
to some extent, within the higher education system.
Ethnic criteria in public
service appointments
The insertion of ethnic criteria into the determination of employment decisions began with amendments to the Public Service Act in 1984. The amendments required the Service to combat discrimination and to enforce equal employment opportunity provisions for women, Aboriginals, NESB migrants and the disabled.
In 1993 there was a sharp toughening of the Government's stance on the matter when the Minister responsible for the new plan, Laurie Brereton, announced a new 'Strategic Plan' for the Public Service. The main new feature of this plan was the stipulation of performance targets for the employment of each of the designated categories, to be achieved by the year 2000. Other Commonwealth government instrumentalities, like the ABC and the Reserve Bank are also required to abide by these rules. In the case of the Public Service the target was 15 per cent NESB representation in the Service by the year 2000 (as against an actual representation of 12.2 per cent in 1992). The ABC, however, has chosen a target of 18 per cent, to be achieved by August 1996, (actual share was 15.7 per cent in 1993) increasing to 20 per cent in the unspecified longer term.11 To qualify as NESB persons, people may be either born in a NESB country or be the Australian-born children of such persons.
In order to implement these targets Departments must ask their existing and prospective staff about their NESB status and also indicate in their annual Equal Employment Opportunity Reports how they are progressing in achieving the targets. The Public Service Commission claims that the merit principle remains intact, but obviously, if Departments are required to meet mandated targets, they may well fudge the merit principle in order to reach the required objective.
In the case of universities, they were required in 1991 to develop plans to improve their representation of various designated 'disadvantaged' groups, one of which was NESB people. No precise guidance was stipulated as to the required level of NESB participation. In reality, few universities have any clear idea whether their NESB students are under-represented relative to the number of NESB people in their catchment or not. Nor is the Government itself aware that (however defined) NESB people are not, in aggregate, a disadvantaged group within the higher education student body. (See Dobson et al. on this question, this issue, pp. 46-54.) Nevertheless, all universities are required to report on their progress with NESB enrolments, and most have developed plans to improve the access of NESB people to their courses.
These developments represent a significant intrusion of ethnic criteria into Australian employment conditions. As noted, the Government's Multicultural Advisory Council would like to take extend the practice further. If they do, it will be despite rather than because of the social justice legitimacy of their case. There is genuine disadvantage within some recently-arrived NESB migrant communities, especially those from a South-east Asian refugee background. But the young people of first or second generation NESB background in Australia who are most affected by ethnic appointment criteria are, in aggregate, not a disadvantaged group. This is especially the case for second-generation NESB people. They have achieved tertiary-degree qualifications at a higher rate than their Australian and English-speaking-background migrant counterparts.12 As a group, NESB people begin with an advantage in applying for Public Service or ABC positions since these positions usually require a degree as a prerequisite. As might be expected, analysis of the younger cohorts of the Public Service indicate that second-generation NESB people are over-represented relative to their share of population .13
There are some NESB groups, like those of Turkish and Cambodian
origin, who are not doing so well in the degree stakes. But neither
the government departments under the Public Service Commission's
jurisdiction nor bodies like the ABC take into account the particular
country of origin or foreign-language group of NESB applicants.
Nor do they take into account whether they are first or second
generation NESB persons or whether the NESB applicant actually
lives in a foreign-language speaking household. In fact, most
second-generation NESB people speak English at home. It is likely
that, in favouring NESB applicants, the ABC and Government Departments
are advantaging groups like the Chinese who (as we show in the
accompanying article on NESB participation in the higher-education
system) have far higher participation rates in universities than
do all other language groups (including those from an English-speaking-background).
CONCLUSION
There are two worrying issues raised by this discussion. The first is that, by promoting ethnic diversity as a feature of Australian society and ethnic criteria as determinants of employment outcomes, the former Labor Government has highlighted a status that most migrants would prefer to put behind them. This emphasis on ethnic criteria is also inconsistent with Labor's stated desire to enhance the status of Australian citizenship, a status which we can all share regardless of national or cultural origin. Emphasis on Australian citizenship rather than ethnicity better accords with one of the Government's own multicultural principles enunciated in 1989 and again in the Our Nation. This is to 'ensure equality of access, opportunity and participation in the social, political and economic life of Australia, unimpeded by barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth'.14 By highlighting ethnicity and the associated ethnic targeting, counting and reporting, the danger is that ethnic barriers will be raised rather than diminished. We know from the US experience, where racial proportionalism has been implemented aggressively, that this has generated a severe backlash and, in the process, further soured black-white relationships.
The second concern is that the more ethnicity becomes a criterion
for jobs and resources the more incentive there is for people
to mobilise politically around separate ethnic communities. For
example, if government services like old-age care, are allocated
preferentially to the communities best organised along ethnic
lines to bid for them, this will encourage other communities to
respond in the same way - even if their members would prefer to
be treated like all other Australians.
References
1 The Next Steps: Multicultural Australia, Towards and Beyond 2000, A Report of the National Multicultural Advisory Council, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1995
2 ibid., p. 62
3 ibid., p. 5
4 ibid., p. 14
5 Andrew Theophanous, Understanding Multiculturalism and Australian Identity, Elikia Books, Melbourne, 1995, p. 47
6 ibid, p. 366
7 Access & Equity, Annual Report, 1994, Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA), Canberra, pp. 76-79
8 Access & Equity, Annual Report, 1995, OMA, Canberra, p, 94
9 Our Nation, OMA, 1996, p. 11
10 Next Steps, op. cit., p. 11
11 ABC, Equal Employment Opportunity Management Plan 1993-1996, 1993
12 R.Birrell and S. Khoo, The Second Generation in Australia: Educational and Occupational Characteristics, (BIMPR), AGPS, Canberra, 1995
13 S. Rimmer, 'Attaining equity: an assessment of federal government programs', People and Place, vol. 3, no. 3, 1995, pp. 16-23
14 Our Nation, op.cit., p. 2
Back to People and Place Home Page.