I
will confine my analysis to ethnic and immigrant issues, which is my
area of expertise. There is very little plausible measurement of racial
or ethnic hostility and public figures regularly proclaim that Australia
is not only the 'most multicultural country on earth' but also 'the
most tolerant'. These are flattering to the electorate and cannot be
taken at face value. Most discussion of ethnic relations in the past
has concentrated on the absence of race riots and violence as found
in other societies, especially the UK and the USA. By that measure Australia
is tolerant - but it also lacks both a fascist tradition (common in
Europe) and a history of race rioting (the last serious one being in
1934 and the most frequently mentioned being 150 years ago).
The
rise of One Nation alerted Australians to the dormant inheritance of
White Australia and its continuing appeal in provincial areas, among
ageing Anglo-Australian men and in some declining or depressed urban
districts. No party in recent years has risen so sharply in such a short
time. The arguments it used - especially against Asians and Aborigines
- were time honoured and recalled those used fifty or one hundred years
before. Nostalgia for an Australia which was rapidly passing away was
also nostalgia for the days 'when we were all the same'. This nostalgia
is shared by John Howard, who regularly states in public that 'Australians
are all pretty much alike' - which was never true and is now manifestly
absurd.
Neither
One Nation nor the mainstream conservative parties have ever called
for a return to White Australia or used the racist terminology so fashionable
at Federation in 1901 and shared at that time with the labour movement.
However, One Nation came mainly out of the mainstream conservative parties
and current polling evidence suggests that most of its supporters have
returned there. The clue to the events of late 2001 is simply that one
million voters cannot be ignored and that the major parties will pander
to any large constituency which so effectively mobilises its support
and gains media attention. That One Nation is now almost defunct is
a major step backwards towards a more civilised public debate. But the
sentiments and resentments are still there and politicians will still
be tempted to cater for them.
The Conservative
Onslaught
Conservative
hostility to multiculturalism predates the rise of One Nation and may
well continue. John Howard publicly broke the consensus on immigration
and multicultural policy in 1988. This consensus had effectively lasted
since 1975 and included the presumption that there would be no return
to White Australia. Even in 1988 Howard removed then Senator John Stone
from his 'shadow' position for arguing that the end of consensus would
be based on a drastic reduction in Asian immigration. The debates around
national identity, which took place mainly in Quadrant during the bicentennial
year, held that there was an identifiable Australian culture which was
threatened and denigrated by supporters of multiculturalism. Many of
these arguments came from the 'culture wars' of the United States and
paid little attention to the modest reality of Australian multiculturalism.
In practice the formulation of official policy from the first agenda
of 1989 to the most recent one of 1999, has always stressed the centrality
of commitment to Australia, its institutions, its basic traditions and
the English language.
The
conservative attack on multiculturalism gathered momentum with repeated
criticism by Geoffrey Blainey (' a nation of warring tribes'), David
Barnett ('the bloated multicultural industry'), Stephen Rimmer ('fiscal
anarchy'), Katherine Betts ('the new class ideology') and Paul Sheehan
('the dividing of Australia'). Some of these were close to Howard and
were duly rewarded after 1996. Talkback radio was normally hostile as
well and Alan Jones gave wide prominence to Pauline Hanson on top of
his regular slot reserved for Howard. The loss of Liberal leadership
by Howard between 1989 and 1995 made little difference and both Andrew
Peacock and John Hewson attacked multiculturalism.
Thus
during the years of Labor government from 1983 to 1996 multiculturalism
was official policy of the Commonwealth and all the States, while being
regularly denounced by some conservative politicians and commentators.
This built up a head of steam which erupted in 1996 with the election
of the Howard Coalition and of Pauline Hanson. Her view was simply that
multiculturalism should be 'abolished' - a position which she held until
she relinquished One Nation leadership in 2002. The immediate political
effect was the abolition of most national agencies for multiculturalism
and the threat, and in one case the reality, of withdrawal of funding
for others. Terms such as 'multiculturalism' and 'social justice' were
excised from the public agendas at least until 1998, as was the expression
'non-English speaking background' (replaced by 'culturally or linguistically
distinct' which did not catch on).
It
could be argued that winding up a few agencies and programs at the national
level did not make much difference to the reality of Australian race
relations. Indigenous affairs were less directly affected although funding
was seriously reduced. Previous Liberal Party threats to abolish both
HREOC and ATSIC were never implemented. At the State level Liberals
such as Jeff Kennett and Nick Greiner simply ignored the national approach.
However the word had gone out that multiculturalism was off the agenda
and this affected the behaviour of public servants and the resulting
budgetary and administrative allocations. Management tools such as 'access
and equity' were reduced in importance. Advocacy of ethnic diversity
was replaced by small 'living in harmony' campaigns and many publicly
funded agencies were instructed not to practice advocacy at all.
Restoring the
Balance
The
political shifts at the Commonwealth level would not have been so important
in affecting ethnic relationships had it not been for several other
parallel developments. These included the electoral rise of 'green'
organisations and the popularity of 'ecological' critiques of immigration
(for example by Tim Flannery); the steady rise in the 'non-European'
population and its visibility in parts of the major cities; the growth
of social problems, including unemployment and crime, among some ethnic
communities, especially those of 'humanitarian' origins; the high profile
of Indigenous issues; the continuing impact of media images of the Middle
East; the continuing campaign by sections of the mass media against
ethnic and racial diversity; the strong electoral showing of One Nation;
and, finally, the series of crises around mandatory detention, asylum
seekers and terrorism which preceded the general election of 2001.
Many
of these impacts, and especially those with overseas origins, would
have affected the local scene regardless of public policy. Refugee impact
and terrorism have seriously advanced the influence of conservative
and reactionary parties in some European countries, most of them more
extreme than One Nation (and more efficient!). Hopefully an Australian
government consistently committed to racial equality, multiculturalism
and social justice, should have blunted the impact of these influences
more effectively than has been done - but this is an optimistic view.
In fact, neither in the Gulf War under Labor nor the terrorist crisis
under the Coalition, has there been anything like the inter-ethnic hostility
that many feared (including the 'warring tribes' pessimists).
Even
if the sky did not fall during 2001-2002, Australia behaved in an authoritarian
manner which damaged its international reputation and revealed unhealthy
xenophobia at home. The demise of One Nation and revelation of the unjustified
demonisation of asylum seekers, has brought the situation back to normal.
But that 'normal' situation still includes having more than 3 000 people
locked away in the Australian desert or on Pacific islands; the abolition
of effective national advocacy, monitoring and research to improve and
maintain ethnic relations; an immigration policy which makes family
reunion very difficult; a volatile public opinion which is potentially
susceptible to racist or xenophobic attitudes; and a national political
leadership which has exploited all of this.
To
improve community relations requires changed attitudes at the national
level; the recreation of viable institutions, preferably outside the
province of the Immigration Department; the constant official repetition
that Australia is and will remain multicultural and that this is of
benefit; curriculum and media content which also repeats and develops
this theme; the continued work of State level agencies and relevant
local governments; and shifts away from the temptation to 'play the
race card' in party politics.
All
of this was attempted in the years between 1972 and 1996 and has had
a long-term impact. It has to be resumed, though not necessarily in
precisely the same form. Australia is not likely to go up in flames
because of racial tensions. But human rights are individual rights.
Among these is the ability to enjoy the benefits of Australian life
with equity and free of prejudice.
