FECCA’s new policy is divisive

Many aspects of the National Multicultural Agenda have a specious definition of integration, equality and cultural differences By NOEL G DE SOUZA

Medical surveys find that migrants develop similar health patterns to mainstream Australians with regard to diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and cancer as they adopt local food habits and lifestyles. Ethnic groups are cultural entities that originated in certain geographical locations. A child born into one ethnicity but brought up in another place will absorb the culture and lifestyle of the place where it is brought up.

The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia’s (FECCA) proposed National Multicultural Agenda (Different But Equal) aims “for renewed political and social commitment to multicultural Australia”. Multiculturalism raises apprehensions in certain quarters within Australia, Europe and Asia. The document states that “it is not ‘multiculturalism’ that has failed, if indeed this is the case as argued by many European nations, but the lack of an authentic and courageous engagement with cultures and their many aspects including religion and customs.”

The document emphasises that the proposed Agenda “is not a nostalgic reinvention of past policies”, but it does give that impression. The Agenda’s “core principle is the notion of equality between all cultures.” This idea is very difficult to sell in either Australia or elsewhere. Almost daily we hear about cultural oppression in diverse places and of the affected individuals seeking refuge in other countries.

The “equality” question is clothed in the Agenda with such strange statements as “there must be equality of ‘cultural circumstance’ as much as equality of opportunity.”

The notion all cultures are equal is an unprovable supposition. Rather, what should be expected is that people from all cultural backgrounds are treated equally under Australian laws. That is the essence of non-discrimination. The document, quoting the August 2009 paper of the Settlement Council of Australia (SCOA), states that “tensions generated by the arrivals of new immigrants …..  require interventions by government to moderate the potential conflicts and ensure economic, social, cultural and political integration.” The proposed National Multicultural Agenda unfortunately, does not promote integration.

The proposed Agenda “rejects the framework of cultural hierarchy inherent in labels such as ‘mainstream culture’ or ‘host culture’”. Those two terms are not implicitly hierarchical. Every country (such as in Europe and Asia and every large state in India) has a mainstream. In Australia, the mainstream has grown by integrating individuals from several ethnic groups. It has also absorbed cultural elements from many cultures such as in music, food and literature.

The “equality” question is clothed in the Agenda with such strange statements as “there must be equality of ‘cultural circumstance’ as much as equality of opportunity.” The explanation given is “that while we may be ‘different’ as individuals, communities and cultures, we aim to achieve equality without relinquishing difference.” Who are “we”? Can FECCA speak for all ethnic Australians? The Agenda’s objective seems to be to blatantly maintain cultural differences, thereby rejecting integration within Australia.

The Agenda uses a lot of prescriptive language. For example, “it expects from all Australians the obligation to be proactive in cross-cultural and intercultural dialogues.” Australia is a free country wherein one interacts with whom one pleases. Cross-cultural dialogue has been successful in Australia for a long time without imposition.

Rather than labelling this document “the most important social policy vision for Australia”, FECCA should ponder on whether its latest proposals promote divisiveness rather than the integration of diverse cultures into Australia.

FECCA “believes that the voices of CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) communities should lead the shaping of a new multicultural policy for Australia …” The suggestion that CALD communities should lead could be interpreted (perhaps erroneously) as the hijacking of Australia’s cultural agenda. Surely such policies need to be shaped by all Australians. As a recent document (The People of Australia, 2010) from the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council rightly states, for a sound Multicultural policy “all governments and interest groups should be careful not to assume a monopoly of knowledge or virtue.”

An individual growing up in Australia studies, watches television programmes and movies, and listens to songs in English. English is both the language of communication and the principal language of culture. For those who grow up here, English is the language they know best and which allows them to integrate with the mainstream. Higher secondary school results demonstrate how well ethnic students perform in English language studies.

Different ethnic groups have come to Australia during different periods. European continentals came here some two or three generations ago. Their younger generations have become mainstreamed. Inter-ethnic marriages have also become commonplace. Hung Le, Vietnamese refugee and now comedian, says: “We Vietnamese are very easily integrated – I think we’ve integrated pretty well in Australia.”  

FECCA’s valuable contributions over the years to migrant groups have helped newcomers to ultimately integrate into Australian society. Its Different But Equal document is, however, incompatible with its valued work upto now. Rather than labelling this document “the most important social policy vision for Australia”, FECCA should ponder on whether its latest proposals promote divisiveness rather than the integration of diverse cultures into Australia.

The renowned shopping centre magnate Frank Lowy spoke for many when he said, “I don’t know any other country that has absorbed such large numbers as successfully as Australia.”