Editor:
Mr. Danny Ben-Moshe, Executive Director of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission

Consultants:
Professor Bernard Rechter, Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Monash University
Dr. Dasia Black-Gutman, School of Education, Australian Catholic University, Sydney
Ms. Ruth Arber, Faculty of Education, Monash University

INDEX

Foreword

Social cohesion and doubts about the suitability of the term "multiculturalism"

The Role of Government

Shared values

Inaccurate terminology

Indigenous Australians

What role should government have in promoting cultural diversity?

How can all Australians be best made aware of the benefits of multiculturalism?

How can social cohesion and the value of diversity be best advanced?

Conclusion

The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission's (ADC) response to the National Multicultural Advisory Council of Australia (NMAC) report Multicultural Australia: The Way Forward is designed as a positive contribution to the important and ongoing debate about multiculturalism in Australia. The ADC warmly welcomes and attaches great value to the opportunity for public discussion offered by this process.

The NMAC report raises many important issues relating to multiculturalism and race relations in Australia. The ADC concurs with a number of views expressed by the NMAC, but many issues give the ADC serious concerns. Foremost of these are the doubts expressed about the applicability of the term "multiculturalism". Revision of this term is something to which the ADC strongly objects. Also of grave concern is the idea of limiting the role of government in the multicultural process, a move the ADC believes would undermine that process.

This submission also addresses what the ADC believes are inadequate approaches to the issue of multiculturalism, including choice of terminology and philosophical approach.

Finally, the ADC offers its ideas on a range of issues raised in the NMAC report, such as how the government can contribute to the multicultural process and how social cohesion and diversity can best be advanced. These proposals are suggested as realistic and achievable.

I sincerely hope that this report is accepted as a constructive, albeit at times critical, contribution and in the good spirit with which it is intended.

Grahame Leonard

Chairman

B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission

In response to the National Multicultural Advisory Council (NMAC) issues paper Multicultural Australia: The Way Forward, the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) welcomes:

• The reaffirmation of the Australian principle of a "fair-go" and a liberal democratic tradition.

• The rejection of prejudice and intolerance.

For these goals to be achieved conditions of tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity must be established. ADC believes this necessitates establishing an anti-racist infrastructure complemented with anti-racist education (see page 5).

In relation to this process, a number of aspects of the NMAC report give rise to serious concern. These include:

1) Social cohesion and doubts about the suitability of the term "multiculturalism": ADC expresses serious reservations about the possibility of reviewing the applicability and use of the term multiculturalism. This is because it is:

• clearly understood by the Australian public to embody diversity.

• an accepted and accurate term in the international lexicon of political discourse.

In addition, ADC takes the view that change in this term would imply a shift away from tolerance and diversity embodied in the term multiculturalism. Moreover, to do so at this stage, where critics of the viewpoint which is implied by the term multiculturalism have received unprecedented prominence and support, would send the wrong tactical signal. The fact that some people perceive the term to be unacceptable and divisive demonstrates how much work remains to be done in effectively advancing and explaining its meaning and value.

2) The role of government: Regarding the view that government should not support multicultural initiatives because they are part of people's private lives which give privileges to non-English speakers, is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of such programs. They serve to assist in the immigrant’s successful integration and absorption into Australian society that they will not feel a sense of cultural dislocation. Rather than conferring privileges, this practice ensures that newly arrived immigrants gain access to and equity in services available to all Australians and thereby provides for cultural enrichment, a key component in a successful multiracial and immigration scheme.

Indeed, the ADC is strongly of the view that in addressing multiculturalism the private and the public aspects cannot be divided in the way the NMAC paper suggests.

3) Shared values: The ADC expresses most concern that there is a perceived contradiction/clash between multiculturalism and Australian values. The ADC takes the view that multiculturalism enhances a sense of loyalty, democracy, and the fair-go. ADC seeks further elaboration form the NMAC on what Australian "values" multiculturalism seems to contradict. To suggest that different ethnic and religious groups might unilaterally and to a man (or woman), or even just because they are somehow different, hold views which are somehow un-Australian is quite a frightening one. People, let alone groups, are not consistent in this way.

4) Inaccurate terminology: It is imperative that the language used in the literature discussing multiculturalism is both accurate and consistent, especially in government- related publications. This is not the case in the NMAC report which, for example, refers to "migrants", which ADC believes is an inaccurate term implying transience, whereas immigrants have come to settle permanently in Australia. Multiculturalism is not about the arrival in Australia. The maintenance of ideas and beliefs and ways of life are not part of a migration function but are about how this community can deal with difference.

5) Incomplete approach: The NMAC report rejects prejudice and intolerance, and calls for fairness and equitability (page 11). However, the rest of the report fails to develop this theme and instead concentrates on cultural and linguistic factors (see "changing emphases"). However, the ADC is of the view that a more inclusive description of multiculturalism would be "cultural and ethnic diversity". This is because some ethnic groups, including Jews, are not culturally different from other Australians in their forms of dress, entertainment and lifestyles. The difference is not cultural but religious and ethnic.

It therefore follows that the needs of ethnic groups are not protected by cultural and linguistic diversity, but through equality of treatment, and equal rights in all spheres of society, such as employment, and by protection against discrimination. A developed and effective multicultural policy must extend beyond cultural and linguistic factors to the existing structures of the country and the spirit of those structures. In that respect the 30 October 1996 Parliamentary resolution is a greater embodiment of these principles than the NMAC report itself. In the view of the ADC the need of respecting cultural diversity is not enough; the message must extend to racial tolerance and equality of rights. This principle is paramount.

6) Indigenous Australians: In its deliberations NMAC attached importance to Aboriginal reconciliation without which "Australia will be a diminished nation." The ADC stresses that this is a fundamental component in the building of a tolerant, inclusive and cohesive society. Without satisfactory completion of this process the moral foundation necessary for the building of a value-based multicultural society will be undermined.
Overall, the ADC is of the view that there is insufficient reference to the Aboriginal community. For example, in section 2 "Development of Multicultural Policies", there is a reference to "many indigenous cultures and customs" of the Aboriginal people, but no reference to their 40,000 year-long history in this land. The NMAC reference to Aborigines is vague and could have been more specific.

In relation to some of the specific questions raised by the NMAC report ADC submits for consideration the following comments:

Government, both as a practical facilitator and as a moral authority, should actively promote cultural diversity, racial tolerance, and equality of treatment. In practical terms this means funding for multicultural activities. The absence of government funding would likely mean an end to, or significant reduction in, the scope of such programs. In real terms this would serve to undermine the substance of multiculturalism and indicate a diminished commitment to securing multicultural Australia.

A precondition for successful multiculturalism is for the Government to reaffirm at every opportunity the highest principles underlying multiculturalism. The Government must be at the forefront of modeling a non-discriminatory language and ways of thinking that powerfully affirm equality of treatment and racial tolerance, as embodied in the October 1996 Parliamentary Resolution.

In practical terms government assistance would involve supporting:

• A range of ethnic-specific activities

• Community education programs that promote the principles and practices which underpin multiculturalism, to the wider community

• Immigrant training and resource programs

• Funding for Aboriginal projects

• Funding of appropriate agencies, such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission

• Advancing reconciliation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

 

An awareness, appreciation and identification of multiculturalism requires a diverse approach. This includes:

Multiculturalism as a matter of day to day life: Learning to respect its presence in their daily lives, from the diversity of cultural and religious traditions which they encounter from the programs they watch on television to people they work with.

 

Economic benefits: Continuing to expound upon the contribution of multiculturalism to Australia’s trade relationships with Asia. If people appreciate that multiculturalism can be to their economic benefit it would be quixotic to oppose it.

Dangers of alternatives: Whilst the ADC prefers to avoid the negatives, if people appreciate the alternatives to multiculturalism - divisiveness of an inharmonious society and national isolation in an era of globalisation - they are more likely to appreciate its significance in the maintenance of a cohesive racially tolerant society.

Creative and popular means need to be employed to achieve this, including:

• Grass-roots multicultural festivals and celebrations which, for example, could be incorporated into Australia Day activities

• Nation-wide multiculturalism schools projects

• Popular mass exposure programs, such as television documentaries or advertisements in cinemas

• Anti-racism education projects.

All of this needs to be backed up by a clear statement from the Government respecting tolerance and cultural and ethnic diversity.

This can be achieved through a combination of the following:

a) An anti-racist infrastructure: It is fundamental that the mechanisms are in place, for example through the Racial Discrimination Act, in which the public understand that racism, like sexism, is unlawful and unacceptable, and where it does occur effective means of redress are available. Without this safeguard declarations of multiculturalism cannot be forced.

b) Anti-racist education: This need not be confined to schools but can extend to the workplace as it becomes a common policy and practice in the workforce amongst major employers.

c) Breaking down barriers: It is difficult to hate once personal contact is made and differences of physical characteristics diminished. The ADC has long practised a program, which facilitates the coming together of different ethnic groups, a program, which could be emulated in the wider community.

d) Responding to hate: Hate can be responded to by promoting cultural diversity but this will not in itself prevent racist attacks unless ethnic diversity, such as the principles of tolerance and non-discrimination, is practiced. Racism has existed for many years in Australia and we must look to its causes and manifestations. Racism and anti-Semitism will not go away simply by celebrating cultural diversity. To move towards a tolerant society we must also fight the forms of which support intolerance.

e) Popular projects: Popular projects such as those outlined above.

As the NMAC noted, the accomplishment, which the ADC fully recognises, of "building a tolerant, inclusive and diverse society of which we can all be proud...has not occurred by accident". The policies and traditions upon which these were based must continue.

The ADC recognises that government cannot be solely responsible for creating and guaranteeing a multicultural environment. However, through a moral undertaking and appropriate funding assistance, government can play a key role as a facilitator.

While Australia is a harmonious society the ADC has monitored increased activity of racist groups that seek to sow division, as well as a rise in racist incidents. These should provide cause for concern.

Unless certain changes are made such as those outlined in this submission, the ADC is of the view that Australia could confront, in terms of multiculturalism, a regression to the 1960s and 1970s.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

Copyright (1998)
B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission

To return to the menu page of Jewish Australia wej.com.au