Raja Ratnam [1] is a Webdiarist who worked, at the level of Director, for about 9 years, in the Department of Immigration in the 1980s, on policy on ethnic affairs, citizenship, refugee and humanitarian entry. Under the name Arasa, he is the author of Destiny Will Out, a personal narrative based on his own work and settlement experience, The Karma of Culture‚ which deals with the issues arising from attempts by new settlers to retain ancestral cultures (Trafford Publishing, Canada) and Hidden Footprints of Unity, which targets the undesirable consequences of multiculturalism policy (Sidharta Publishers, Melbourne). His previous piece for Webdiary was Successful migrant settlement [1].

by Raja Ratnam

Australia joined most of the world during the last quarter of the last century by becoming ethnically diverse in its population base. Is this a good thing for those who had to experience such a vast change?

Not everyone will agree that this ethnic diversity has advantaged Australia, or improved the quality of life in the country. Those who have descended from the sun, or fallen from the moon, or arrived by space ship, or feel that history has shown them to be a superior species of humanity will surely seek to remain ethnically (ie tribally) pure within their national borders. After all, the original concept of nation reflected one people, with common origins, history, language, traditions, and beliefs; and normally sharing a geographical space. As national borders were re-drawn over recent centuries, for all manner of reasons, minority peoples or tribes became incorporated within some of these revised national borders. This may not have resulted in a unified people as before.

Since tribal delineations engender a ‘them vs. us’ perspective, minority peoples within the new borders might not receive equal opportunity in all spheres of life. Indeed, there is enough evidence of these diversity-with-inequalities all over the world.

In Australia, a white man’s home-away-from-home was initially sought, spoilt only by a minority white tribe with a divergent religion. It has taken more than two centuries for mutual tolerance to be practiced widely, and for equal opportunity to be applied bilaterally. Yet, the Australian indigenes remain marginalized economically and societally, whilst their skin colour is being lightened generation by generation.

Further, it is only since the mid-1970s that official policy permitted coloured immigrants, allegedly in a non-discriminatory manner. Yet, as the Census data show, until the end of the last century, the majority of Asian immigrants came from eastern Asia. That is, they were the lighter-coloured former ‘yellow hordes’; the majority were Christians! It was only in recent times, that south Asian (the darker people) have been allowed to enter in goodly numbers. That is, it would seem that official policy was mindful that the new arrivals should not trigger in the populace those racist attitudes previously displayed toward the Aborigines. A (presumably) shared Caucasian heritage from past millennia might explain why many modern Aborigines might easily be mistaken as ‘Indians,’ or vice versa.

In spite of this caring official policy, many of the older Anglo-Aussies (to be found in bulk in ‘sea-change’ townships) are not happy that so much change has occurred in the population mix in so short a period. How much change can one be expected to accept within the one lifetime? Whilst ethnic diversity suits those from ethnically diverse countries, or who were born in Australia within the last thirty years, or whose perspectives are influenced by ethnic cuisines and eating places, the older Anglo-Aussies are clearly wary. For, whilst it is good for business to have a growing population, it is the people at street level who have to cope with foreign looks, language, and behaviours.

When some of the new entrants flaunt their cultural differences through attire, asserted divergences (and some superiority) in religious and cultural values, and expect Australia and Australians to change to suit them (rather than the reverse), the older Anglo-Aussies re discomfited. They are reminded of that Roman Catholic/Protestant divide which was until relatively recently upheld with great determination by some of the clergy. And it was the emancipation and education of women, and the good work by teachers in public schools, which contributed substantially to the breakdown of this religious divide involving an allegedly ethnic minority.

Thus, time, habituation (ie. on-going close contact with people who are different for one reason or another), and education can lead to mutual tolerance. How about equal opportunity to occupy the sacred sites, the seats of power? If the new arrival and his descendants continue to present themselves as different, can they reasonably expect equal access to power, even if they are not denied (and cannot be denied) equal treatment everywhere else? Given the national identity and national pride which have evolved over time in the host nation, do not the new arrivals have to demonstrate that, not only do they pay their taxes and behave as good citizens, but they wish to become an integral part of the pre-existing whole?

In the early post war years, whilst British immigrants naturally treated Australia as their own backyard, the non-British Europeans did seek to integrate into the ethos of the mainstream population. However, as the Department of Immigration had mistakenly referred to this process as ‘assimilation’, there subsequently arose a claim from some of the Europeans that this process denied them the right to practice their cultural values. Yet, none of the claimants would be able to show that they were being denied the right to pray as they wished, to dress as they wished, to eat the foods they wished, to celebrate their festivals as they wished, and to speak their mother tongue whenever and wherever they wished. Was the encouragement to speak English in public (with obvious benefits) and to be good citizens by respecting Australia’s Constitution and institutional arrangements and practices a denial of ethnic cultures?

However, governments suddenly discovered the ethnic vote. Parallel delivery structures for migrant settlement services; support for the creation and operation of over-arching state and national structures encompassing local ethnic community organisations; the creation of ethnic advisory councils; the reduction of the qualifying period for citizenship; and the introduction of multiculturalism policy followed. These led to a degree of enhancement of the value of ethnic difference; a substantial taxpayer cost; a futile claim by a few of the ethnic spokesmen that English is not Australia’s national language; and an effort to have migrant communities (not the whole populace) determine immigration policies. The asserted ethnic ambition and its adverse consequences finally led governments to stress unity (through citizenship) rather than diversity (through multiculturalism policy encouraging the retention of public displays of difference).

 Yet, multiculturalism policy was benign in its original intent. The Anglo-Celts were invited to move over in their political and career sandpits, ie to offer equal opportunity to seats of power to the non-Anglos. The policy also encouraged each ethnic culture to be respectful of all other cultures. Would that offer equal opportunity in ethnic business enterprises and community organizations to those of other cultures? The bottom line here is that people, especially those not attuned to, or familiar with, a tolerant liberal society, are not likely to give jobs in their own businesses and community organisations to those they regard as foreigners. It is also questionable whether people respond to exhortations by government to change their behaviour. There are also those who do not want governments in their beds, wallets, or their minds, ie they do not want officialdom to tell them how to behave.

Because multiculturalism policy effectively encouraged the perpetuation of cultural (and therefore tribal) differences, to the detriment of an eventually integrated Australian people, it was recently discarded. Multiculturalism, as policy, is dead – as it should be.

Ethnic diversity is, however, here to stay. As no ethnic culture can claim to be superior to all others, a unity of the Australian people can be expected to naturally evolve in time – as long as tribal leaders (viz. politicians and priests) can be prevented from seeking ethnic separation with superiority. Time, habituation and education will then bring us together as one people. What can be wrong with that objective and hope? 

It will be desirable to get rid of a word that few people understand, and that is difficult to say or to write – multiculturalism. It is also out of date, as it refers to a now defunct policy – which is also not needed. Ethnic diversity = a multicultural society. It is here to stay. It is not a policy. It is a reality – of living.