On this question of the settlement of newcomers into Australia it’s pretty evident that we’ve lost the plot.
What was the plot?
The plot, when large-scale immigration from Europe began after the Second World War, was that government accepted that you can’t just shovel large numbers of people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds into your society and expect this to … just work. To make it work, government itself has to have programs to ease the transition – for migrants, and for the people into whose communities they are moving – and it has to support this with sustained and positive messages about immigration and immigrants.
There was, of course, no philosophy of multiculturalism at that time, and governments chose the policy of assimilation. Migrants were expected to become indistinguishable from the Australian-born, and the Australian-born were expected to facilitate this process. Many programs were put in place to make this happen.
Assimilation was not particularly benign, humane or culturally informed. But the important point for today’s discussion is that Australian governments recognised that you had to have a settlement policy, fund it, and actively promote it to the public as good for Australia.
When the policy of assimilation was replaced by a more culturally sensitive and inclusive policy called integration in the early 1960s, it was grounded in the same principles.
And when multiculturalism overtook integration in 1973, ushering in much more complex ideas about the nature of Australian identity and citizenship, the government accepted that there was even greater necessity for an active settlement policy.
But what happened with multiculturalism in the 1980s, which saw the successful beginning of substantial immigration from Asia, is instructive. When I was asked in 1987 to chair a review of our immigration policies, what we found was that multiculturalism was ‘on the nose’. There was widespread scepticism, great misunderstanding of what it entailed, and a view that it was being forced on the community, discriminated in favour of migrants, and was a kind of social engineering aimed at forcing change in the Australian identity itself.
The lesson was that the government had neglected the basic principle that in a large-scale immigration program, now from very non-European countries, you had to work not just at making migrants feel good but at bringing the populace along with you.
Multiculturalism, and the institutions and services to support it, have since the mid-90s undergone almost constant fluctuation and changes of course, with no sustained articulation of a philosophy to carry it. The one clear line until very recently has been that we need to maintain large-scale immigration because it’s good for the economy.
Now, over the past 20 to 30 years, this economic argument can be counted a success, and it has brought to Australia large numbers of people of very different cultural backgrounds including, manifestly, the PRC, and different religions including Muslims. But we have been shovelling them in with great regard for the economic benefit, and scant regard for the imperatives of successful settlement policy and social cohesion.
If we don’t make the effort, what happens?
A good settlement policy sees that immigrants have the linguistic and other skills to survive and flourish, but we now see almost daily reports of immigrants without these skills, and missing out, marginalised, exploited, and even, in times of disaster and pandemic, endangered.
If a good settlement policy champions inclusion, we now see encouragement to division – through silence when there should be thundering condemnation, through the time-tested dog whistle which gives a green light to those who demonise the immigrant, and through the direct stigmatising and scapegoating of immigrant communities from many quarters, without restraint.
We’ve not only lost the plot. We’re in danger of losing the values we like to pride ourselves on, and losing social cohesion.
The Henry Chan Lecture, 3 December 2020
Stephen FitzGerald AO is a Board Member of China Matters, Distinguished Fellow of the Whitlam Institute, Associate Professor, Australia China Institute for Arts and Culture at Western Sydney University. He was the first Ambassador of Australia to the PRC.
Comments
17 responses to “We have lost our way on immigration and multiculturalism”
After reading maryjoy333 et al, I reckon you guys have been had – you bite like Richard England commented. However it does remind me of a song I learned at an Australian High School – “Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, No more Chinaman in New South Wales”. British colonialism is not all bad, at least I can use English humour & language to upset a few racists. Apology to Shakespeare: If multiculturalism be the food of love & peace, play on! (Twelfth Night).
We have given our opinion in the Senate FADT enquiry on multiculturalism. I agree with Ambassador Stephen Fitzgerald that immigration and multiculturalism has lost its way. Please refer to our oral submission in : https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/commsen/d93badad-41a7-4337-bf93-baa1011c8383/&sid=0000
and my 3 articles on Multiculturalism in P&I.
It took several readings to understand whether the author is serious or not. I believe she is, no irony here. It is difficult to believe that in 2020 someone can seriously write such old fashioned and outdated waffle.
For most people the “good old times” of British domination of this multicultural country is well and truly over. But it seems that some conservatives still seem to wallow in British superiority and usually ignorance. One of our recent prime ministers is clearly one of them and the current one looks suspiciously like one. It is decidedly
passe to talk about terra nullius after the High Court decision, but that doesn’t seem to have occurred to the author. This should even more clear since the discovery of a well established Aboriginal agricultural history, which seemed to have been obliterated in the shortest possible time since the British arrival (just read Dark Emu). Times change and since my arrival in an extremely parochial and myopic Australia in 1974 I now see a wonderful culturally diverse country hugely enriched by the arrival and establishment of people and cultures from all over the world.
Unfortunately the prejudices, racism and human rights abuse of refugees continue to fester, and actively encouraged by some in our political system. It seems we have not quite come of age yet.
No Stephen, under this government we have lost our way on everything except, of course, the value of money.
But any sort of forward thinking policy, as well as just plain common decency, is not only non-existent but completely and deliberately ignored.
Prof. FitzGerald,
I have a copy of your excellent book “Comrade Ambassador” and I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone interested in an important phase of Australia’s recent history. I couldn’t agree more that a proper policy is crucial to establishing a harmonious multicultural society.
Just as a point of interest, Singapore, when it was in the cusp of separation from Malaysia, had to put up with a number of racial unrests. I was aware that as a new nation they had a policy to integrate their various races into a harmonious whole. When the HDB (Housing Development Board) was set up to build houses for its people, I noticed that the allocation of the units in the apartment blocks was carried out to ensure the mixing of its citizen of different ethnicities. Since then, there has been no media reports of serious racial unrests or overt racism among Singaporeans . It is an example that social engineering work can work if done properly and in the right context. They still have this policy in place:
https://www.gov.sg/article/hdbs-ethnic-integration-policy-why-it-still-matters
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
A “good” settlement policy might just include the locals, consenting to settler numbers. Whereas indicative LibLab policy is, keep the issue from voters, zoom back to 200K net migration ASAP.
mary(therese)joy333 makes no sense. One wonders what she has taken. A brief look at just a few of her recent posts makes for quite bizarre reading. And nothing in her profile. Hiding behind a tag.
Professor FitzGerald – I recall aged two-and-a-half in 1951 a Good Neighbour Council organised Christmas Tree party in Tamworth NSW – part of that early post-war immigration era recognising that there were “New Australians” in the nation. During the 1950s and early 1960s before heading away to university – I grew up next to Dutch neighbours – others Italian, English, Scottish – of German and Chinese and Irish origins. A Welsh classmate, a Chinese lad walking around with a dictionary to assist his learning (no ESL/EAL classes then – but he WAS surrounded by native speakers. Our school was blessed by Hungarian Holocaust survivor (we heard whispered stories – apocryphal probably – or not) of what he had endured – Dr Laszlo – Geography teacher – and loudly no friend to Bob Menzies! As children in my neighbourhood we were in and out of each other’s homes – learning much by observing – and tasting. In Sydney I sat with a a Russian lass – part of the colony of those expelled by MAO Tse-tung – whose South African post-Sharpeville massacre arrival Latin teacher of 1962 was also in Tamworth my Latin teacher a year later in 1963. Another seat companion had a father the first Mayor of Chinese ethnicity – of Darwin – and the other – Jewish. Me – a fundamentalist protestant. Then! David Malouf was one of our lecturers. I took myself hitch-hiking around NZ before commencing teaching in far south-west NSW – Hay and Deniliquin – including Ngiyaampa and Yorta Yorta students of some extraordinary talent. Gough Whitlam came to government – and our local Member was Al Grassby whom I had met along with my Dip-Ed group at the Yoogali Club in Griffith in late 1970 – where he told us of the engagement of Chinese timber clearing gangs opening up farming country… Multiculturalism had arrived. (Thanks in part to Canada’s bicultural character leading the way.) My wife and I headed out to the world – and felt ourselves Australian in those spaces – and came back to study and grow – and to note the rightwing kick-backs. I was away for almost two decades in Japan when Howard came to power – unable to say Sorry to Indigenous Australia for all the wrongs of government policy – his ugliness towards China (that tyranny man in Victoria having set him off I suspect) and his terrible treatment of asylum-seekers and of wars with his US buddies in Iraq and Afghanistan and on and on ever since… Nothing Professor FitzGerald with which I would wish to disagree in your assessment – nor that of Teow Loon Ti nor Chek Ling.
We MUST remind ourselves that during the Federation debates/conferences 1891 – 1900, the very idea of racial “diversity” and “multiculturalism” was NEVER on the radar and for very good reason – the nightmare of the Gold Rush period – commencing around 1850’s – which was only then receding, had demonstrated the truism that was later expressed in Kipling’s poem “The Stranger”, composed in 1908. In fact, this poem had its ideological inspiration from the damage done to the entire Anglosphere by racial “diversity” and “multiculturalism” during this Gold Rush period.
Australia was founded on three foundation principles – racially White, culturally British and religiously Judaeo-Christian. With a 95% overlap between White & British, a 95% overlap between White & Judaeo-Christian, and a 95% overlap between British & Judaeo Christian.
C.E.W. Bean writing in 1907 said this:
“This [Australia] is the last land open to the white man – the only one that can be purely British”.
Billy Hughes, in 1916, addressing troops departing for the war:
“I bid you go and fight for White Australia in France”.
THIS was (and IS) the true Australia that constitutes the very essence of what it means to be an Australian. And until Whitlam, this was bipartisan policy. Then the cultural Marxists, which had commenced the “long march through the institutions” since the early 1960’s started their insidious war against that Australia of Federation, aiming to replace it with its “mirror opposite”. For White, they demanded non-White; for British, they demanded non-British; and for Judaeo-Christian, they demanded non-Judaeo-Christian.
Stephen Fitzgerald knows all this, and so why is he complaining at the failure of this cultural, racial and religious High Treason against Federation-Australia? He ought to honestly admit its failure, and join the ranks of those engaged in restoring Federation Australia to its intended Greatness – as designed by the Federation Generation. To make Australia great – again.
Thank you for such a pithy summary of our White Australia history. And the ironic humour at the end?
As a 1962 entrant into this brown land, my feeling is that the rearguard of White Australia has been successful in poisoning the cultural maturity that Whitlam embarked upon. Blainey was the de facto Commander of the rearguard for White Australia. He convinced Howard to sustain the decades of culture/history war. (If White Australia was no more, then our British culture must be maintained!) Like America we are now divided, though not as badly so far.
Hopefully Covid and our inadvertent upsetting of the China cash cow might set us on a path to cultural sanity and maturity. Enlightenment? That might be a bridge too far for a Hillsong PM – The Rapture will deliver him to heaven to meet Christ one day, perhaps soon.
I too, thank you for your contribution. Three major points arise from your thoughts:
1. “Cultural sanity and maturity” and “Enlightenment” NEVER involves High Treason against the very foundation pillars of your country, in Australia’s case: the White Australia policy. That is certifiable psychiatric madness.
True “cultural maturity” – for Australia – must always start with a celebration of the success, even triumph of White, British and Judaeo-Christianity in Australia – that apart from Aboriginal demography – was an absolute Terra Nullius in EVERY other respect – and from 1788 to 1901 created the proud nation of Australia in the space of 113 years. In spite of Aboriginal interference. This is the Blainey – and correct and truthful narrative.
We beat the Americans to independence (1620 – 1776) – 156 years and
the Canadians – British North America (1620 to 1867) – 247 years.
With a smaller population than both of these Nations at the time of their respective independences, this is something we Australians MUST be be truly proud of, and constitutes the true and ONLY basis of Australian Patriotism and Nationalism.
2. The true “poisoning” of Australia was with the twin evil policies of racial “diversity” and “multiculturalism”. Any other version of this “poisoning” is not only false, but is part of this Cultural, Racial and Religious High Treason that I have already set forth.
3. Re China:
Until Whitlam, the China-Australia relationship was a fraught one, born with the Chinese-Australian conflicts on the goldfields of Australia from 1851 onwards. And which lasted until Whitlam. Whitlam commenced a “Neville Chamberlain” period of appeasement towards China that has now – with COVID19 in 2020 – spectacularly failed and has come to an end.
Very soon, we will see a “Winston Churchill” (‘where are the Nazis’ he growled) arise that overturns and destroys this “Neville Chamberlain” period and restores Australia to a more truly mature and non-appeasement approach to and relationship with China and the Chinese.
Ms,
In reading your comment, I was so surprised by the ISIS-like extremism that I thought on first reading that it was a tongue-in-cheek comment on the subject matter to test the wit and mettle of the readers of this journal. Your response to Chek Ling convinced me that you indeed believe in racial superiority and that Australia’s early success is entirely attributable to racial superiority. Without doubt, credit (with qualification) must be given to the early British settlers for building this beautiful country. However, it is the attribution of reasons underpinning the success that I find disturbing. You are using Social Darwinism to justify your argument! How horrifying in this day and age for an apparently educated person to think in this manner! I had this said to me about the indigenous people of Australia when I first came to this country 35 years ago. An Anglo Australian unabashedly told me that the white people here shouldn’t feel bad about the predicament of the indigenous people because it was a competition and “too bad” they lost.
Just to provide a background to an experiment on racial superiority, I saw a TV programme by the BBC about an experiment that the sister, Elisabeth, of the great German philosopher Nietzsche carried out with the Nazis in Paraguay, South America. Years later, a team from the BBC went to Paraguay to find out what happened to this colony of Aryans who were supposed to be the seeds for the master race in the new world. It turned out that, left to fend for themselves after more than three decades, many were suffering genetic deformities from inbreeding and the majority had become as poor or poorer than the Paraguayans around them. There is a website that provides a snippet of the same group recently on the following website:
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbctwo/england/1992-04-08
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Ms,
In reading your comment, I was so surprised by the ISIS-like extremism that I thought on first reading that it was a tongue-in-cheek comment on the subject matter to test the wit and mettle of the readers of this journal. Your response to Chek Ling convinced me that you indeed believe in racial superiority and that Australia’s early success is entirely attributable to racial superiority. Without doubt, credit (with qualification) must be given to the early British settlers for building this beautiful country. However, it is the attribution of reasons underpinning the success that I find disturbing. You are using Social Darwinism to justify your argument! How horrifying in this day and age for an apparently educated person to think in this manner! I had this said to me about the indigenous people of Australia when I first came to this country 35 years ago. An Anglo Australian unabashedly told me that the white people here shouldn’t feel bad about the predicament of the indigenous people because it was a competition and “too bad” they lost.
Just to provide a background to an experiment on racial superiority, I saw a TV programme by the BBC about an experiment that the sister, Elisabeth, of the great German philosopher Nietzsche carried out with the Nazis in Paraguay, South America. Years later, a team from the BBC went to Paraguay to find out what happened to this colony of Aryans who were supposed to be the seeds for the master race in the new world. It turned out that, left to fend for themselves after more than three decades, many were suffering genetic deformities from inbreeding and the majority had become as poor or poorer than the Paraguayans around them. There is a website that provides a snippet of the same group more recently:
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbctwo/england/1992-04-08
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
I was tempted to let this contribution slide, but I must address the issues contained in the first paragraph.
1. The attribution of true Patriotism and Nationalism – which applied to the commencement of Whitlam – as “ISIS-like-extremism” is deeply disturbing, and is concrete evidence of Marxist brainwashing and intellectual corruption of the Nation’s self-asserted élites into being traitors to Federation-Australia.
2. The “politically correct” accusation of “racial superiority” is direct evidence of Cultural Marxist “cancel-culture” and “critical-race-theory” brainwashing as applied to Federation Australia.
3. The comment “However, it is the attribution of reasons underpinning the success that I find disturbing.” It was NEVER “disturbing” to ALL Australians until Whitlam-Grassby and their Cultural Marxist inauguration of the trashing of Federation Australia.
4. The comment “ You are using Social Darwinism to justify your argument! . . . ” is a presumption made by all Cultural Marxists. That notion was furthest from my mind when I made my observations. I was merely reciting True and Accurate Australian history as taught prior to the Australian history bowlderisation and falsification which commenced during the Whitlam-Grassby era and which, I clearly understand is deeply offensive to all Cultural Marxists. That can only apply to your Anglo-Australian interlocutor.
I understand that Fitzgerald, of course would beg to differ, but his history education reflected all that I have written. Why has he not given a disclaimer to the effect that he has repudiated his Australian history education.
Ms,
When I said ISIS-like extremism, I wasn’t referring to Patriotism or Nationalism or Whitlam at all. In fact, I am an admirer of Whitlam and identify with his views. This is a crafty counter argument. And I am glad that Australian democracy allows arguments of this nature.
I have been called “China apologist” and now Marxist. Name calling will not win the argument. Social Darwinism (simply explained, it is about the superiority of race) in your comment is for all to see. I, on the hand, have not said anything associated with Marxism at all. Furthermore, Prof. FitzGerald did not write a history book but a biographical account of his tenure as ambassador to China.
You cleverly avoided the evidence that I gave on the Nazi experiment to seed the new world with Aryan genes that failed miserably. I base my argument on evidence. Please do the same.
Have a nice day.
Teow Loon Ti
I don’t think MaryJoy333 can be a real person. He or she is having us on.
Sorry for the delay in responding to you.
May you have a happy and safe festive season and a good New Year.
All the best.
M.
Same to you.
Teow Loon Ti