What makes Australia unique and special is the ability to celebrate one’s ethnicity and cultural heritage in an Australian setting. I am able to call myself a Chinese-Australian and Asian-Australian without having my loyalty questioned and allegiance to Australia judged.
Acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge’s recent National Press Club address on improving English language skills and shared Australian values as part of maintaining our social cohesion was a serious case of political déjà vu.
The last time such reforms were introduced was in 2006 during the waning years of the Howard Government in the form of a formal citizenship test. Many advocates at the time, myself included, saw the test as discriminatory towards new migrants and arrivals from non-English speaking countries.
Race relations proved to be a hot topic in the lead up to the test’s announcement with the 2005 Cronulla Riots and the terrorist bombings in London and Bali in the same year. Such events led to the Howard Government’s attempt to implement “Australian values” to foster social cohesion as a means to counter extremism. Fast-forwarding to 2020, it seems the threat to our social cohesion is not extremism but foreign interference. And like 2006, the Federal Government is implementing measures around English language skills and values that may single out certain members of the Australian community.
Australia has become more ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse since 2006. With new forces challenging our social cohesion, we need multiculturalism to stand alongside our commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law as a value that is representative of all Australia and defines what it means to be Australian.
While Alan Tudge did not name the actors threatening our social cohesion through foreign interference, recent commentary and media coverage would lead us to believe he is referring to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Responses by the Chinese-Australian community to the Minister’s remarks have been mixed with some supporting the federal government’s push to increase English language capability while some others have expressed concern over the motives behind these policy changes as specifically targeting their community.
Already we have witnessed the growing distrust of Chinese-Australians within Australian institutions and society resulting from the PRC’s assertive rise. The escalating allegations of improper influence in our affairs by the PRC is causing increasing anxiety to those caught in the crossfire.
Recent revelations about foreign influence into our political system at the local, state and federal levels are deeply concerning and while questions need to be asked and allegations assessed, not all Chinese-Australians should be painted with the same brush, and these cases should not be used as a catalyst to discourage Chinese-Australians participating in our democratic and public institutions.
Multicultural Australians, like all Australians, are concerned with the rise of foreign influence and interference. Our leaders should remember and remind Australians of the unwavering loyalty and commitment of multicultural Australians to Australia, recognise our contribution and do more to assist them to fully participate in our society.
It is only by strengthening our communities through active participation in our democracy could we tackle foreign influence and protect our sovereignty. We cannot lose trust and disenfranchise members of the Australian community as a result of the actions of a few. If we do, our entire community and country will certainly be worse off.
In protecting multicultural communities from foreign interference, the Morrison Government has to get the message right from the very start to not fuel further mistrust and the social exclusion of some groups.
The Morrison Government’s intentions to better track our social cohesion in a more sophisticated manner is a welcome progress to a much-needed emphasis on multicultural and cultural diversity policies. Despite Australia being one of the world’s most successful multicultural nations, policies to support our cultural and ethnic diversity is not a major priority.
While we still have a long way to go to achieving equality, areas such as gender and Indigenous Australians have made positive progress. Gender equity has very much entered the mainstream Australia psyche with an employer and organisation’s reputation, effectiveness and performance judged on gender representation on boards and senior leadership teams. Indigenous Reconciliation too have gained a place in our psyche and despite the slow progress, there are measures and national policies in place such as Closing the Gap, Reconciliation Action Plans and recently, a five-year strategy to boost the number of Indigenous Australians in senior leadership roles at the Australian Public Service.
Unlike gender equity and Indigenous policies and strategies – which tend to gear towards representation and recognition, strategies and funding programs for multiculturalism and cultural diversity tend to gravitate towards community events, festivals and celebrations. Governments have yet to make commitments to introduce substantive policy actions like the collection of more accurate and accessible data on ethnic and cultural composition of Australia’s overall population and the setting of targets to support and elevate more people from culturally diverse backgrounds in senior leadership roles.
We need to feature multicultural Australia, the contributions and stories of multicultural Australians more often in our national identity and storytelling. We need institutions that reflect modern multicultural Australia and that means having more people of colour in leadership positions across our parliaments, corporate boardrooms, universities, courts and newsrooms.
For an Asian-Australian, Muslim-Australian or African-Australian, we can never fully shed the social labels of ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’ and ‘outsider’ until others can see us in leadership and public roles alongside Australians from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, setting the direction of Australia and contributing to nation building.
We should be having greater conversations about the national values, principles and characteristics that reflect modern multicultural Australia. As a starting point, we need to include the values of multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion and cohesion in an updated version of the Australian Values Statement as a pledge for new Australians.
The Minister was right to point out few nations could claim to enjoy the peaceful unity that characterises Australia’s multicultural society. While the focus is on integration, we do not discourage new Australians to abandon their cultural heritage and mother tongue. What makes Australia unique and special is the ability to celebrate one’s ethnicity and cultural heritage in an Australian setting. I am able to call myself a Chinese-Australian and Asian-Australian without having my loyalty questioned and allegiance to Australia judged.
Multiculturalism is successful in Australia because it is a quintessential Australian value. Former Governor-General Sir William Deane argued in 1997 multiculturalism “recognises the entitlement of all Australians to preserve and cherish with affection, respect and pride their customs, cultures and religions, subject to the overriding loyalties and obligations of their Australian citizenship and duties under valid Australian laws”. Our cohesive multicultural society remains one of Australia’s greatest achievements and as Sir William Deane argued, a national policy of acceptance and protection that promotes national unity and identity.
To meet the challenges to Australia’s cohesion from the COVID-19 pandemic to foreign interference, embracing multiculturalism as our shared value couldn’t come at a more critical time. Australian multiculturalism is a success story, and in addition to celebrating it, it is time for the Australian Government to take the lead to recognise multiculturalism by enshrining it as a shared Australian value to bring and keep all Australians together.
Jieh-Yung Lo is Director of the Centre for Asian-Australian Leadership at the Australian National University.
Comments
8 responses to “Australian multiculturalism is a success story: it is time to enshrine it as our shared value”
Jieh-Yung Lo is in denial. Australian multiculturalism was a success story. Lo may have a suit and a tie in place of his grand parents’ outfits but the status of Chinese migrants down under have changed little since 1810.
A great success but we need ” to meet the challenges to Australia’s cohesion”?
Sounds to much like post May 13 1969 Malaysian Government propaganda.
Lo seems to be trying too hard to defend the failed policy of multiculturalism. I do not know many migrants who are for it, we were all quite happy with the previous policy of assimilation.
Multiculturalism is an industry; Lo should not pretend that he and his Centre for Asian-Australian Leadership at the Australian National University would not exist if not for that industry.
John Menadue might understand what I mean when I say that Lo’s essay is very much in the mould of what Malaysians expect to hear from the Malaysian Chinese Association.
As an entirely informal observation, it seems to me that the inclusion of Asian people has undergone a remarkably rapid change in recent years. Probably it is not as marked for Muslim people but some very senior positions in business have been occupied by people whose names and appearance suggest they are Muslim or Arabic. This is not nearly as apparent with Africans but in Australia they are small in number and I think mostly of recent arrival. These changes take time and those affected can rightfully be impatient, apply pressure, and that helps to ensure that the issues are dealt with. But understanding is needed from both the Australian born and the newer arrivals.
That said, I think Australia’s administration of its asylum-seeker policy is disgraceful and is alone reason for a change of government.
Sir,
Apart from the quality of life of minorities implicit in a non-discriminatory policy and national culture, there is an economic impact that has usually gone unnoticed. A case in point is the example of Singapore and Malaysia. Both started out on the same footing when Singapore was aborted from Malaysia in 1965; with Singapore at a disadvantage because most of the resources, natural and human, were in Malaysia. Singapore was just a port for the mainland with lots of coolies and gangsters. However, there was one big difference. While Singapore undertook a non discriminatory policy described by the late PM Lee Kuan Yew as “meritocracy”, Malaysia operated on a racially and religiously biased policy enshrine in Article 153 of the constitution.
Today, the outcomes of the two very different policies are there for everyone to see. World Bank statistics indicate that in 2019, the per capita income of Singaporeans is US$65, 233.3 while that of Malaysia is US$11,414.8, a difference of more than six times. Despite starting with nothing more than 1.8 million people and a port, it now has a stable economy, is debt free, high tech industries and social harmony that many countries would die for. This has not gone unnoticed by some Malay intellectuals recently, and I have noticed critical appraisals of their government’s performance.
I believe that there are no real Australian values or Multicultural values, only shared values of all humanity. The values that come to the fore are priorities determined by circumstance. When you are convicts thrown into the bush and expected to survive by farming an alien, hostile environment, you only have your mates to depend on. Hence “mate-ship” comes to the fore. Am I missing something?
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Multiculturalism is a noble ideal, perhaps a naive one. Its over-egging in the beginning decades gave the rearguards of White Australia ammo for the culture wars they institued under the command of Howard. Multicultrualism is now largely removed from active government support.
In its place is social cohesion. Nothing wrong with that. Except that it seems to have been used to dog-whistle against ethnic groups, for one reason or another. Hence Chinese Australians are assumed to be vulnerable to PRC recruitment, unless otherwise proven! The Yellow Peril has morphed into silent Invasion. Why not, CA have proven to be loyal Australians first and foremost – they work hard, keep out of trouble, and send their kids to the best schools where they often excel! And their kids are as aussie as any! We are not there yet.
I have thought a lot about this issue over the years. some of these thoughts are in my late submission to the Senate Inquiry: Issues facing diapora communities in Australia. Mine is No 81.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Diasporacommunities/Submissions
Another great article Jieh-Yung on Australian multiculturalism and its success story. The only concern I have is that current requirement for Australian Citizenship is not quite appropriate and the motive behind it has deviated somewhat from the foundation set down since Whitlam-Fraser time and what have been elaborated by two of our former very learned Governor -General Sir Ninien Stephens and Sir William Deane on Australian Citizenship. I refer also to articles written on this matter by Peter Hughes who is a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development. He had a long career in the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship, retiring as Deputy Secretary in 2011. He was awarded the Public Service Medal in 2005 for outstanding public service in the development of policies and programs to increase citizenship, multicultural harmony and the settlement of refugees. His advice should be considered by current Minister Alan Tudge.
It is comforting to see the younger generation getting interested in Multiculturalism and the opening statement of JY revealed a great sense of optimism which we oldies do not have. We would be more comfortable if the statement was issued in the past tense because we feel that those in the front line in implementing Multicultural policy have lost their way, or not conforming to the charter envisaged by the founding fathers/mothers. Most multicultural institutions in the State or Federal governments were community initiatives that were taken over and funded by governments and in the last 20 years, they have showed a decline in maintaining the original charter. SBS is a good example.
The second part of the statement deals with self-identification. One would agree that during the golden years of Multiculturalism, that would be the right feeling. Sadly, the China bashing in the media since Dec 2016 has changed all that. The collateral damage to the 1.2 million Chinese Australians (CA) is unmistakeably increased racism, rising McCarthyism (all Reds under the carpet) and casting doubts about the loyalty of CA in Australia
The heat on the CA is so intense that we had to counter by getting our voices heard in our weekly column in au123 (Melbourne), articles in John Menadue (History of Multiculturalism), Quora and media interviews. The Australian journalist Graham Lloyd “Batting for Chinese diaspora, not the CCP” 3Aug2020) painted an accurate picture of the CA diaspora and does not share the confidence of the second introductory statement of JY.
Recently, we have written to Minister Tudge in response to this community message on social cohesion. Although the CA community supports the National Security bills, we are weary and frightened of how easy it is to be charged with under the statements “foreign influence” or “foreign interference” and the collateral damage is “community disharmony”.
With 150 nationalities living as immigrants in Australia, would lobbying the government (independently) constitute a breach of the Act for all countries?
Lastly, if we to campaign for a revival of Multiculturalism, a good requisite would be the revival of the Multicultural Bill that was stalled in the Senate several years ago. For the younger generation to carry on the banner of Multiculturalism into the future, the reading of the history and the work of the ‘Ethnic” communities of the 1970s is a pre-requisite. Good luck.
Mr Pun,
When a country is at war, it is usual for some of the democratic rights of its people to be suspended. However, in peace time, if a section of the population is “weary and frightened” of exercising their democratic rights, it spells a democracy reflecting dictatorship of the majority; not a liberal one. I too am concerned at times about speaking my mind on P&I but I tell myself that I do it for the love of my children and grandchildren. I do not take the democratic rights given to me by this country for granted. I feel that we would be failing in our duty to keep quiet in the face of abuse of the democratic system; an abuse couched in words like “People have the right to be bigoted”.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti