27-November-2006
Speeches, Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Community
Address to the Transformations Conference
Plenary Address
27 November 2006
Australian National University, Canberra
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
E&OE…
Australia has been good for migrants, and migrants have been good for Australia.
To continue this success in a developed world which is getting rapidly older, and a third world whose people are on the move, means dealing with some confronting issues.
These issues all concern the imperative of our community being “one community”.
It is about promoting a shared national identity. It is about making citizens.
At many citizenship ceremonies there is a 1987 song, ‘I am Australian’, written by Bruce Woodley and Dobe Newton, which invariably steals the show.
For me, the first line of the chorus says it all – “we are one, but we are many”. It tells the story of a nation of immigrants, a strong community built around a large measure of give and take.
It shows how Australia has prospered with an intake of migrants that sees one quarter of our 20 million population born overseas.
It conveys how each wave of new settlers has broadened and deepened our culture and character, helping to mould new attitudes and traditions.
Yet it powerfully illustrates that the fruits of this diversity can only be realised if taken within the framework of the common values that unite us as one community – respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, a commitment to democracy and the rule of law, the equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, fair play and compassion for those in need.
Importantly, the verses of the song speak with pride of the values, traditions and accomplishments of the Australia of old, including our proud indigenous history.
This sense of shared values is the glue that binds our nation together.
It involves the maintenance of a shared national identity. It is about how we define ourselves as Australian.
A shared identity is not about imposing uniformity. It is about a strong identification with a set of core values, whilst permitting a large measure of personal freedom and “give and take.”
A shared identity is about commitment and avoiding the emergence of a community of communities. But within this framework of core values it is also about an openness and respect for the “dignity of difference” that has so enriched our cultural and economic life in Australia.
As the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, it is my responsibility to help forge this sense of shared values and national identity so that we are in a position to draw on one of the enduring strengths of our nation, our ethnic diversity.
It is a vague term multiculturalism. Clearly it means different things to different people.
To the Government multiculturalism has meant capturing the benefits of a culturally diverse community around core institutions and core values. For the Government Australian multiculturalism was something unique – an expression of inclusiveness, an opportunity for everyone to be part of a cohesive whole.
The ‘I am Australian’ song which goes – “we are one, but we are many” can be seen as an expression of cultural inclusion. However, some interpretations of multiculturalism reminds many Australians of the “we are many” at the expense of “we are one”.
We are a nation incorporating many cultures, and as a community we are the stronger for it. The concept of Australian multiculturalism is intended to reflect this reality.
However, some Australians worry that progressively the term multicultural has been transformed by some interest groups into a philosophy, a philosophy which puts allegiances to original culture ahead of national loyalty, a philosophy which fosters separate development, a federation of ethnic cultures, not one community.
And there is no question that there is a live debate on just what is implied by the term multiculturalism.
In the recent Discussion Paper looking at the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test, I stated in the foreword that Australia, in the main, has embraced and drawn from the wealth of diversity of peoples from over 200 countries, and that we are all the richer for it.
I went on to say that this has been achieved because “Australia has successfully combined people into one family with one overriding culture, based on a common set of values”. I believe this overwhelmingly to be so.
In responding to the Discussion Paper, the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria said it does not support the underlying premise of the Discussion Paper that Australia has “one overriding culture”, based on a common set of values. The Council says it believes that Australia is a multicultural society where people unite around democracy, the rule of law and our shared homeland.
This particular interpretation of multiculturalism assumes that communities with separate identities can live together peacefully, united only by the rule of law and common geography, rather than a shared understanding of nationality, a shared identity.
Simply sharing the streets we walk and drive in, sharing public transport, sharing the shops, and jobs and schools and sharing in democratic choices – a mere sense of simply “co-habiting” a space - is not a strong basis for a cohesive, trusting society.
All these acts of sharing take on meaning, and build one community, only if we share and unite behind a core set of values, a shared identity.
When a group as prominent as the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria rejects, in the name of multiculturalism, the notion of an overriding Australian culture based around a core set of values we have a problem because this is essentially a separatist view.
In particular, new and emerging communities, who increasingly come from cultures far different to our Australian culture, are effectively being told that they have no obligation to do their best to become “Australian”.
Advocating the equality of cultures, or a community of separate cultures, fosters a rights mentality, rather than a responsibilities mentality. It is divisive. It works against quick and effective integration.
The one point on which there must be universal agreement is that those who come here should unite behind a core set of values, a shared identity.
This ‘shared identity’ imperative for effective integration is driven by significant emerging challenges.
The combination of globalisation and an ageing population is creating labour and skills shortages across the wealthy OECD countries, and will increasingly do so to a remarkable degree.
In the last two decades of the 20th century 120 million people entered the working age category across OECD countries. This is a figure which will fall to just five million people reaching working age during the first two decades of this new century.
This is also prompting a continuing increase in the numbers of people coming to Australia from countries whose cultures are quite different from our own culture.
Our migration mix is changing.
Overall the largest migrant intake continues to be from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Yet, last year the third biggest group of migrants came from China, at over 10% of the total intake.
Over the last 10 years, around 200,000 people have come from Africa and the Middle East.
By way of example, last year (2005/06) African migration represented 55% of our offshore humanitarian intake, with more than 30,000 arrivals over the last four years.
These changing migration patterns reflect a changing world, and in cultural terms represent the arrival of many from cultures which are far more removed from the Australian culture than were the cultures of those earlier waves of largely European migrants.
At the same time as the makeup of our migration intake is changing, the nature of our economy continues to shift.
Not only are the people coming to our shores not of the same, predominantly European cultural mix, as those that came previously but the Australia that accepted immigrants in the 1950’s is not the Australia that accepts migrants today.
Back then, we were a far more industrialised nation, rather than the services based economy of today.
A services economy relies heavily on a good grasp of English and the ability to interact with fellow Australians.
Furthermore, our industrial sector was low skilled and labour intensive.
Migrants walked off the ships at Melbourne or Newcastle or other ports, and typically within days could be working in low skilled jobs on assembly lines at the Ford factory, or at the BHP steelworks in Newcastle. They acquired progressively their English language skills ‘on the job’.
Visit the Ford factory today, as I have done recently, and you still see assembly lines, and you still see migrants, but the sophistication of the manufacturing process is breathtaking, the skill levels of the workers remarkable, the training programmes challenging and continuous.
Outside of our traditional resources sector, the extraordinary emergence of China and India as major growth countries further highlights Australia’s future role as a high value services provider, as well as a very high value, highly skilled manufacturer, with a need for increasing flexibility to capture niche, and changing opportunities.
All of this presents opportunities – and on the migration front the reality of introducing new perspectives, new experiences, new talents into the Australian family – but it also presents challenges.
There is no sense putting our heads in the sand, and hoping for the best.
As we have done in the past, we have to ensure that the new arrivals develop the English language skills and a general understanding of our community, so that they might integrate quickly and make the most of the opportunities available in Australia.
But the greater cultural differences creates an even stronger imperative, and bigger challenge.
The recent discussion paper canvassing a formal citizenship test as a means of prospective citizens demonstrating their knowledge of the English language and of Australia seeks to complement the whole-of-government measures being explored to improve settlement outcomes for humanitarian entrants, and the National Action Plan to address extremism and intolerance in Australia.
I see a citizenship test providing aspiring citizens with more incentive to learn English, understand our way of life and the commitment they are required to make to become Australian citizens.
Encouraging people to obtain these skills will help migrants maximise their ability to get a job and participate in the economy as fully as possible, and as soon as possible.
With the impact of the ageing of the population across the rich OECD countries, the greater movement of peoples around the world and the changing mix of migration it is critical to maintain broad community based support for Australia’s large migration and humanitarian programme.
Requiring people to pass a formal test before applying for citizenship, and receiving greater undertakings from applicants for permanent and long term temporary visas, sends a clear signal to the broader community that new citizens have the skills and the knowledge to participate as full members of our society.
Against the background of all the matters I have just spoken about, I have been reviewing the advisory structures for this portfolio, in particular the Council for Multicultural Australia and the Muslim Community Reference Group.
These two bodies have had a project rather than a strategic focus, and they have performed these tasks well. I thank them sincerely for their valuable contributions.
However, it is important to review the operation of such bodies to ensure that they reflect current community expectation and are continuing to enhance out culture of inclusiveness and integration.
In this regard I note that, many Muslims have expressed to me a concern that the Muslim Community Reference Group only serves to highlight the Muslim communities as separate, rather than part of our broader community. I agree.
As well, with a new century and these major new challenges, there is a growing need for strong strategic advice.
These are issues I want to ensure are addressed as I currently consider the future structure and role of such advisory bodies.
Conclusion
The Australian culture of “having a go” has stood us in good stead for over 200 years but we have always sought as a nation to do things better. In fact, it can be argued that some of the reasons why our migration program of the last sixty years has been so successful are that firstly, we have had a deliberate programme of migration, a deliberate program of border control and a deliberate program of settlement measures, and secondly, we have always kept adapting, fine tuning and improving these programs.
This approach is even more important today as we are living through a time of great change in the world, especially in regard to migration matters.
I don’t underestimate how confronting and tough the debate is on some of these issues. But we must not follow the path of least resistance for fear of offending. We must continue to seek to manage effective integration of new arrivals so that we continue to build one Australian family which draws on the diversity within our midst.