2013 AMCS Multicultural Conference – Strengthening Diversity.

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Confusions about Multiculturalism - Jan Pakulski, University of Tasmania As a number of recent publications in the Australian media 1 suggest, Australian multiculturalism, seen as a strategy of managing cultural diversity and a social policy– has been often misunderstood and confused with ethno-cultural pluralism and assimilationist ‘melting pot’. These confusions are hardly surprising in the light of scarcity of public clarifications and paucity of informed debate. As argued below, Australian multiculturalism is a difficult concept and a complex policy-strategy. It raises a number of questions that need to be addressed in both the political, academic and public forums. If swept under the carpet, these questions are likely to be answered in a biased way, thus multiplying the confusions, undermining public confidence in multiculturalism and the bi-partisan consensus about multicultural policies. Such a collapse of consensus would pose a serious danger, especially at the time when Australia enters its second ‘immigration revolution’. 2 Let me highlight some of the popular confusions about multiculturalism with the intention of clarification rather than evaluation or advocacy.

The underlying principles As rightly noted by almost all observers, multiculturalism has many meanings. It refers to the ‘demographic reality’ of ethno-culturally diverse Australian (or any other) society, to the philosophical and sociological theory (modernisation through sociocultural differentiation) that informs multicultural policies, to the policies embraced by Australian governments since the late 1970s (tolerant ethno-cultural pluralism), and to an ideal, a set of goal-values (unity in diversity) that underlies these policies. While most critics focus on the first – and the most superficial – meaning (ethno-cultural diversity), this paper focuses on the last three meanings.

1

For example, Staff writer, ‘Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announces Australian Multicultural Council’, Herald Sun, 17 February 2011; Greg Sheridan ‘How I lost faith in multiculturalism’, The Weekend Australian 2-3 April 2011; Chris Bowen, ‘Why Sheridan and the Immigration Minister parted company on road to multiculturalism’, The Australian, 16 April 2011; Patricia Karvelas, ‘Liberal senator warns against multiculturalism’ The Australian, 20 May 2011; Greg Sheridan, ‘European model a wretched failure’, The Australian, 11 August 2011; Chris Merritt, ‘Goodbye to rights under sharia’ The Australian, 18 May 2011.

2

The first revolution consisted of a shift from British to mass non-British migration in the late 1940s; the second shift has been occurring since the 1980s from the predominantly European to the predominantly Asian mass migration. See Marcus et al. (2009).

1

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 They have been combined by a groups of Australian sociologists in the 1970s (especially Jerzy Zubrzycki, the Chair of the AEAC, and his collaborator Jean Martin) into a consistent vision cum social policy of Australian multiculturalism, subsequently presented in a number of papers and adopted by successive (ALP and Coalition) governments as a policy-strategy towards ethno-cultural diversity.

The 1977 AEAC paper – the first document that clearly spells out the meaning of Australian multiculturalism – highlights three core issues of multiculturalism, and the 1982 ACPEA paper adds the forth one. They form the core principles of Australian multiculturalism: 1. social cohesion understood as national integration, that is, institutional arrangements for allocating resources and resolving conflicts; 2. equality of opportunity and access; 3. freedom to chose and maintain one’s own cultural identity understood as ‘the sense of belonging and attachment to a particular way of living’; and 4. social duty of requirement of shared ‘responsibility for, commitment to and participation in society’ (1982:12).

The subsequent documents, especially the 1989 National Agenda for Multicultural Society, underplays the centrality of national integration (social cohesion) by multiplying the core goals-principle to eight. 3 3

‘All Australians should have a commitment to Australia and share responsibility for furthering our national interests.

All Australians should be able to enjoy the basic right of freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or culture.

All Australians should enjoy equal life chances and have equitable access to and an equitable share of the resources which governments manage on behalf of the community.

All Australians should have the opportunity fully to participate in society and in the decisions which directly affect them.

All Australians should be able to develop and make use of their potential for Australia's economic and social development. All Australians should have the opportunity to acquire and develop proficiency in English and languages other than English, and to develop cross-cultural understanding.

All Australians should be able to develop and share their cultural heritage.

2

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Together, these eight principles articulate a somewhat crowded normative framework for policies concerning migrant adaptation and ethno-cultural diversity in Australia. While national integration is still at the top of the 1989 list of goalsprinciples, it is spelled out more vaguely than in previous documents (as a ‘commitment to Australia’), and its importance is in many ways qualified by the other seven goals-principles. 4 One can say that in its original and early formulations (1977-82) Australian multiculturalism envisages sustained ethno-cultural diversity in the context of national unity, cohesive society and equity, all secured by the shared ethos of equal opportunities; shared meta-institutions of (common) law, liberal democracy and English language; and by the ‘common’ duty of social engagement and participation.

Obviously, these original goals-principles form a dynamic long-term goal-aspiration, an ideal type, a model that can never be fully achieved, but can be approximated to an increasing degree. It has been a realistic goal-aspiration in the sense of having firm theoretical foundations, normative backbone and a strong anchoring in Australian history. Similarly, from the proverbial day one, multiculturalism has been a part of the broader liberal-democratic institutional framework contrasted with the past discriminatory White Australia policies and mono-cultural assimilationism. Together with multicultural strategy, the subsequent Australian governments have embraced tolerant liberal-egalitarian policies compatible with a vision of modern, open, diverse and fair Australia. This vision, to repeat, is contrasted with assimilationism – a strategy that requires and expects migrants to ‘melt in’ and lose their original identity – and with all forms of ethno-cultural stratification, including apartheid Australian institutions should acknowledge, reflect and respond to the cultural diversity of the Australian community. ’ (1989:14).

4

Thus the 1989 National Agenda for Multicultural Australia spells out the principles as including: ‘three dimensions of multicultural policy: . cultural identity: the right of all Australians, within carefully defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion; . social justice: the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity, and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth; and . economic efficiency: the need to maintain, develop and utilize effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of background.’

3

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 (a doctrine of steep ethno-cultural stratification disguised as ‘separate development’).

Ethno-cultural assimilation and stratification, including the American ‘melting pot’, became the two major rivals of the multicultural vision.

However, as the early papers point out, also from day one, Australian multiculturalism has been misunderstood and confused, mainly with the policies that guided its Canadian, British and American counterparts. And these confusions have seldom been clarified, thus resulting in perpetuation of misunderstandings.

Distinctive Australian multiculturalism The Australian version of multiculturalism is quite distinctive and unique. Unlike the American ‘melting pot’ rival, Australian multiculturalism allows minorities to retain their cultural identity and cultivate some of their traditional lifestyles. But it rejects ethno-cultural segmentation and cultural regionalism, both found, in various degrees, in the Canadian and British policies towards minorities. Instead, it has embraced a vision of ‘horizontal’ and ‘dispersed’ cultural differentiation that takes a form of culturally diverse groups and communities. Such a ‘compromise’ reflects a liberal vision of ‘ethnic groups with continuity and some measure of autonomy’ recommended by the intellectual creators of the Australian multicultural vision.

(1977:5; 1982:12).

Multiculturalism, as these creators stress, is not about immigrant selection, but about the way in which government and the Anglo-Australian majority treat diverse ethnocultural minorities – be it immigrant or established – or about the majority-minority relations. In that sense, to use a popular cliché, multiculturalism has always been a vision and strategy ‘for all Australians’. At its very heart lies a vision-goal of a culturally diverse but well-integrated society that grants equal rights and opportunities to (and imposes the same duties on) all its citizens regardless of their culture. Such a society, the Australian multicultural vision stipulates, celebrates cultural diversity as an asset, and not a threat or liability. At the same time it is clearly recognised that the Australian society has been predominantly British in its origins, Anglo-Australian (or Anglo-Celtic) in its cultural background, and liberal-democratic in its ideology and institutional framework (common law, parliamentary democracy).

Diversity of cultural backgrounds and identities does not undermine traditional solidarity (mateship), and does not undermine a strongly egalitarian, or rather equitarian (‘a fair go’), popular ethos.

4

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 This is possible because (initially white European, and subsequently all) migrants have been welcomed in Australia as a solution to the ‘populate or perish’ dilemma.

Both during the colonial years and as an independent nation Australia has always controlled the inflow of migrants and regulated their entry – at least until the recent inflow of ‘illegal refugees’ and asylum seekers.

This approval of migrants as a necessary addition created specifically Australian dispersed ‘ethnic communities’. Predominance of such dispersed communities (as opposed to territorially concentrated ‘nationalities’ distinguishes Australian multiculturalism from the Canadian and British cases (‘territorialised pluralism’), as well as from the American ‘melting pot’ producing distinctive ‘ethnic strata’. Thus, unlike in Canada, multiculturalism was adopted in Australia as a strategy of dealing mainly with the consequences of mass migration, while in Canada it was a tool for legitimating the formation of relatively autonomous indigenous ‘nations within a nation’. Yet, in spite of these differences, Australian and Canadian multiculturalism have remained similar – though as siblings rather than twins.

Great Britain adopted quite different strategies of dealing with its cultural minorities. It can be describes as liberal tolerance of immigration combined with indifference and minimal facilitation. It is little exaggeration in describing this approach as, in fact, a benevolent neglect. There has been no encouragement of cultural retention, no assistance in identity or lifestyle maintenance, and very little intervention in the settlement cum integration process.

The contrasts have been even sharper when we compare Australian multicultural policies with the approach of the European societies, such as France and Germany.

Both countries have adopted what may be called liberal assimilationism. Migrants there have been tolerated, rather than welcomed, and they have been expected to assimilate culturally: become French and Germans respectively in their identities and lifestyles. You cannot be ‘good French/German’ without closely approximating ‘typical French/German’, though the typicalities have always been multiple, and they include some established sub-national variations. In Australia, by contrast, one ‘can be a good Australian without being a typical Australian’ – at least in theory and intention of multiculturalism.

Paradoxically, one may say, assimilationism seldom results in effective assimilation and integration. In fact, it typically produces ethnic stratification and alienation – the fact clearly recognised by the creators of Australian multiculturalism. Neither the Algerian refugees in France, nor the Turkish ‘guest-workers’ in Germany, have ever been seen and treated as legitimate ‘new nationals’.

5

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Unlike migrants in Australia, they have never been systematically assisted in their settlement and integration, let alone helped in sustaining their cultures. They have been reluctantly tolerated as ‘guests’ (in fact, unwelcomed visitors) and expected either to return to their counties of origin, or to ‘blend in’. They often suffer from widespread prejudice and discrimination, and many of them fail to acquire citizenship rights and legal protection.

Finally, the American ‘melting pot’ strategy and policy combines tolerant integrationism with a version of open assimilationism that insists on, and expects, that all migrants embrace the ‘American way of life’. This ‘American way of life’ has been relatively flexible in the sense of regional variation. But the American ethnic ‘melting pot’ does not support retention of migrant identities, even in a hyphenated version. Americans expect migrants to ‘melt in’. Moreover, there has been no governmental assistance in this process of ‘melting in’; this is a matter left for individuals and groups themselves. Equal rights are granted to individuals and accompanied by an ethos of free competition – which results in a dynamic but steep ethno-racial stratification in wealth and status. More recently, there has been a considerable hardening of policies and attitudes towards Arabs, Muslims and illegal migrants from Latin America – an unfortunate consequence of terrorist attacks, security scares, Middle Eastern wars, growing competition for scarce jobs (unemployment) and publicised waves of ‘ethnic crime’ (drug smuggling). This is worth mentioning here because some commentators point to the US as a ‘successful migrant society’. If it is successful, it is a qualified success.

These differences in national policies towards migrants and minorities are seldom recognised and rarely understood. In fact, many critics confuse Australian multiculturalism with its Canadian, British, European and American counterparts, and many misinterpret the absence of multiculturalism (in the Australian sense) with its excess or failure. Thus some critics of multiculturalism in Australia have triumphantly announced that British PM, Mr David Cameron and German Chancellor, Ms Angela Merkel, have recently lamented the ‘failure of multiculturalism’ in their countries. Yet, neither Germany nor Great Britain has ever embraced multiculturalism of a type adopted in Australia. On the contrary, as mentioned before, British governments have traditionally pursued policies of tolerant and benign neglect towards ethnocultural minorities, and German governments have practiced assimilationism. What Mr Cameron and Ms Merkel criticised were, in fact, some disastrous consequences of their non-multicultural (largely neglectful and/or assimilationist) policies.

6

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Such policies predictably create ethno-cultural stratification and widen ethno-racial and ethno-religious divides. Moreover, as recognised by the ‘founding parents’ of Australian multiculturalism, the assimilationist policies sometimes trigger vicious circles of social discrimination, fragmentation and alienation, as well as occasional outbursts of hostile backlash on both sides of widening ethno-cultural divides.

Therefore the alleged ‘failures of multiculturalism’ mentioned by Ms Merkel and Mr Cameron simply reveal and confirm the pitfalls of assimilationism in Great Britain and Germany.

Integrative multiculturalism This brings us to the second misunderstanding and confusion. Australian multiculturalism aims, and it has always aimed, at social cohesion or social integration – and not ethnic or religious division fragmentation, let alone separatism.

Its original principles, in other words, stress ‘social cohesion’ as the main goalaspiration. Modern sociology calls this type of institutionalised social cohesion (an outcome-concept) ‘social integration’ (a process-concept). Social integration works when components-groups function harmoniously as a part of the larger whole – here, a national society.

Thus Australian multiculturalism is not – and has never been – an invitation to, or a licence for, ethno-racial or religious segmentation, division, isolation, let alone apartheid. 5 As stressed by the ‘founding parents’, ‘in a cohesive multicultural society, national loyalties are built on ethnic loyalties.’ (1977:16). The 1982 paper and the 1989 National Agenda are even more explicit in stressing ‘the premises that all Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia, to its interests and future first and foremost’.

5

As the ACPEA paper (1982:2-3) says, ‘This [vision of society in Australian multiculturalism] is different from a society based on separate development, in which physical isolation or rigid inter-group barriers result in separate institutional arrangements – such as different legal, political or educational systems – and there is very little common purpose and shared identity.’ The paper spells out the meaning of the duty of multicultural integration as ‘equal responsibility for, commitment to and participation in society.’ (1982:12). It also warns against the danger of group separatism: ‘Groups should not separate themselves from the rest of the community in a way that denies either the validity of Australian institutions or their own shared identity as Australians. The pursuit of group interests should not be taken so far that they damage the nation as a whole or unfairly infringe the rights of other groups.’

(1982:26)

7

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Moreover, social integration (cohesion) is perfectly compatible with social-cultural diversity, that is, with a wide freedom to embrace and cherish diverse traditions, to cultivate diverse identities, and to practice diverse lifestyles. This is because integration (cohesion) is not identical with homogeneity, uniformity or conformity. On the contrary, one of the distinctive features of social bonds in modern society is the fact that these bonds unify groups and individuals that are different and unique. Such modern social bonds (of complementarity) accommodate difference and diversity.

They also generate a sense of approval of diversity as a desirable social characteristic. One should add that this is widely understood and accepted by both the social-cultural majority and minorities.

Both, the defenders and detractors of multiculturalism often ignore this point. This is probably because the original vision of ‘unity in diversity’ is quite complex. As the ‘founding parents’ of multicultural policy state (AEAC, 1977: 18) What we believe Australia should be working towards is not a oneness [understood as homogeneity and conformism – JP], but a unity, not a similarity, but a composite, not a melting pot but a voluntary bond of dissimilar people sharing a common political and institution structure.

Let us translate this admittedly hermetic phrase into more colloquial English. It means that social integration does not mean or presuppose homogeneity, similarity and conformity to one set of cultural values and norms – or as the author put it ‘a oneness’. On the contrary, as noted by a 19th century French sociologist Emile Durkheim, modern social integration/cohesion (social solidarity) rests on difference, complementarity and inter-dependency. 6 Social integration in modern complex society – ‘a unity’ in the passage quoted above – presupposes differences and relies on diversity, but it relies on equity, that is equality of opportunities and absence of discriminations. Such a form of integration (unity in diversity through equity) is found in all modern societies, and it is regularly generated through division of labour (occupational diversity and specialisation) and the cultural ethos of liberal individualism. Thus social and cultural differentiation and the resulting diversity are not symptomatic of pathological fragmentation or dissipation of social bonds, but a part of a perfectly normal social modernisation.

6

Modern societies, Durkheim (1933) argued, are like jigsaw puzzles: their constitutive elements (groups and associations) ‘fit in’ well only when they are different from each other, and therefore capable of complementing each other in the functional, structural and cultural sense. We value diversity and praise uniqueness of groups and individuals because we rely on complementary and difference for our survival and success.

8

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 This brings us to the very theoretical and normative core of multiculturalism. It assumes that cultural diversity brought by both, the mass non-British migrations and by the progressive social modernisation is compatible with national unity, harmony and solidarity. When properly managed (by controlling stratification), socio-cultural diversity does not take a form of ethno-territorial divisions, but socio-cultural complementary pluralism, a cohesive mix of different traditions and lifestyles, different groups with diverse outlooks and faiths, united by shared national commitment, identity and meta-institutions. This assumption is derived from social theory that portrays modernisation as enhancing ‘unity in diversity through equity’, as well as from the experience of most modern societies that become more culturally diverse without losing their national cohesion.

But it works better where cultural minorities are dispersed (rather than territorially concentrated), where they enjoy equal and reciprocated recognition and respect (rather than suffering discriminations), and where they are well integrated in all aspects of social life (economically, politically, culturally).

These sociological insights help in understanding both, the radical and conservative opposition to, and criticism of, integrative multiculturalism. The former comes from groups that treat multiculturalism as a struggle against what is seen as a persisting and oppressive socio-cultural stratification combined with a dominance of the AngloCeltic majority. The latter comes from social-cultural establishments that treat all minority assertions as usurpations, as well as from traditional rural, small-town and suburban communities, less affected by both mass migration and social modernisation than the metropolitan centres. In such social settings, cultural diversity is less appreciated, and sometimes seen as a threat, rather than a valuable asset.

Reciprocal multiculturalism Another and closely related confusion ignores reciprocities inherent in the concept and model of Australian multiculturalism. This multiculturalism implies – rather than explicitly states – both the rights and the mutual duties/obligations in the majorityminority relations. The ‘minority rights’ involve recognition and respect for difference (right to ‘cultural identity’), equality of opportunity, and the right to assistance in both integration and in sustaining a chosen cultural identity. The obligation side is perhaps less clearly spelled out and less clearly articulated in the 1977 paper. It includes integration and respect for diversity, but also inter-cultural understanding, commitment to and respect for majority, especially for the shared meta-institutions (common law, equal rights, liberal democracy and English language).

9

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 The 1982 ACPEA paper states more explicitly that it is a duty of all groups to integrate in a wider society, and this duty is understood as shared responsibility for, and shared participation and involvement in, social life of the nation – in its economic, political and cultural dimensions. Reciprocal engagement and interaction, in other words, are among the original and principal goals-aspirations of Australian multiculturalism. Social isolation and closure – in fact, any form of particularism that does not acknowledge mutuality, the shared national responsibility and engagement – are not the option.

The 1989 National Agenda for Multicultural Australia also articulates the reciprocal duties in a clear way: ‘[The goals of multiculturalism] apply equally to all Australians, whether Aboriginal, Anglo-Celtic or non-English speaking background; and whether they were born in Australia or overseas. There are also limits to Australian multiculturalism. These may be summarized as follows: • multicultural policies are based upon the premises that all Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia, to its interests and future first and foremost; • multicultural policies require all Australians to accept the basic structures and principles of Australian society - the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, Parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language and equality of the sexes; and • multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values.’ (1989:8) The problem seems to be not so much with understanding of mutual rights and duties, but with balancing them. For example, there are wide differences in perception of the proper role of ethnic structures, especially ethno-specific organisations: some see them as primarily the organisational devices for cultivating ethnic bonds, and sustaining ethnic cultures and identities. Multiculturalism implies a slightly different role and emphasis. Minority organisations serve not only for cultural sustenance, but also as integrative mechanisms, as social ‘adapters’ to wider society. 7 7

The ACPEA (1982:30) considers group- and ethno-specific structures ‘to be acceptable where they: * do not create a situation where equality of opportunity is seriously at risk; * do not result in an 10

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 They are supposed to prevent particularistic closure, open up ethno-cultural communities, and assist in ‘mainstreaming’ their members. 8 Striking the ‘right’ balance between these two roles is difficult, though – and often regarded as controversial.

There is also a fair degree of confusion about majority’s rights and duties implied by multiculturalism. The majority has a right to respect for its ‘democratic’ prevalence and de facto hegemony, especially the affirmation of British-Australian metainstitutions of common law, liberal democracy and common English language. The majority has also a liberal ‘duty of care’ towards minorities, and this duty involves not only tolerant acknowledgement (respectful recognition), but also equity and fairness in treatment. This is worth stressing because the duties of majority implied by multiculturalism are often portrayed as passive ‘tolerance of’ (one is tempted to say ‘reluctant acknowledgement’) minorities. In fact, it is more than that. Multicultural philosophy sees diversity as an asset for all Australians. Such asset has to be actively sustained through assistance in its preservation – and this requires investing resources in both, the integrative assistance and the much less popular assistance in preserving minority cultures, especially their languages.

Again, this may be a banal conclusion, but pointing to the problem of balancing rights and duties in the majority-minority relations, and balancing the integrative and culture-sustaining assistance is far from banal. In fact, it touches a number of problems and controversies, often ‘swept under the carpet’. One of them concerns political-ideological selectivity in interpretation of multiculturalism. In the hands of some left-libertarian critics, multiculturalism turns into a battle cry against discrimination of ethno-racial minorities. This struggle against domination is legitimate – though only a minor part of the multicultural agenda. The similar partiality or selectivity mars the arguments of conservative critics, who regard culture as largely a private matter, a process that should be left free from government ‘interference’. Yet, if left without such ‘interference’ (a code world for ‘assistance’), small and poorly resourced groups would be deprived of the choice of their cultural identity and ‘sentenced’ to forcible assimilation. Such assimilation ‘by default’ would reduce multiculturalism to superficial celebration of ‘food, costume and dance’ – the only form of diversity tolerated before the 1970s. unreasonable economic or social cost to the rest of the Australian community; and * do not infringe individuals’ rights to chose their own identities and live accordingly.’

8

Thus the Polish Association in Hobart – one of the oldest and most successful ethnic organisations in Australia – offers not only the course of Polish language, aimed at cultural sustenance, but also equally popular course of English aimed at cultural integration.

11

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Respectful multiculturalism Multiculturalism rejects cultural domination of the majority, but it is respectful of majority’s rights, especially the rights reflecting the origin of the major institutions and the democratic ‘rights of numbers’ (the majority status). This is worth mentioning because some portray multiculturalism as a hostile rebellion against the Anglo-Celtic majority – an equivalent of a revolutionary challenge to Anglo-Australian ‘ruling cast’.

This is obviously an interpretive error. Multicultural vision has deep British roots. It reflects, and originates from 9, a powerful stream of British liberal philosophy that stresses tolerant accommodation of differences, openness and concern with individual and group freedoms. It is a ‘liberal multiculturalism’ (Levey 2010) embedded in the rich liberal-democratic political traditions in the similar way as the Australian political system is embedded in the British (including Scottish and Irish) political philosophy and the Westminster model.

Yet, as mentioned earlier, multiculturalism also adds to this ‘British tradition’ also some elements of a distinctive Australian flavour, mainly the sense of equity, fair go, and egalitarian mateship, the later most evident in the readiness to assist all ethnic groups in both, prompt integration and in retaining their identities, together with the cherished elements of specific cultures.

This affinity makes Australian multiculturalism ‘naturally’ respectful of the AngloAustralian majority and its traditions – after all, it is an emanation of these traditions.

The Anglo-Australian majority is therefore treated as a benign hegemon who warrants and politically protects the multicultural principles and policies. The majority, in other words, is seen as a defender of multiculturalism, rather than an imposer of the Anglo-Australian culture. This mirrors the attitudes of many AngloAustralians to their old political masters in London. It has been largely free of hostility (but also free of deference) because – unlike the USA – Australia has never fought for its political independence, though it asserted her cultural distinctiveness.

This fact often ignored by both, the advocates and critics. Australian multiculturalism is both respectful of majority – without being deferential – and mindful of its distinctive liberal-democratic roots. It is often interpreted as a sort of ‘social contract’ between the majority and minorities.

9

As rightly pointed out by Naraniecki (2010), Jupp (in Jupp and Clyne 2011) and Levey (in Jupp 2011).

12

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 The majority accepts minorities and affirms cultural differences in the expectation of minorities being respectful of the majority – of its core values, norms, traditions and meta-institutions that generated the multicultural vision. The rights of minorities to cultivate different cultural identities and lifestyles are accompanied by duties and expectations of (democratic) respect for the majority and of (reciprocal) social engagement, both in the spirit of respect for the liberal-democratic traditions.

Because of this moderate stance and respectful character, one of today’s critics, Greg Sheridan, could write in 1996: ‘There is nothing in multiculturalism that could cause any worry to any normal person. Multiculturalism officially promoted an overriding loyalty to Australia, respect for other people's rights and Australian law, recognition of people's cultural origins, respect for diversity, the need to make maximum economic use of the skills people bring to Australia and equity in access to government services.’ 10 Robust multiculturalism Critics may rightly object to the above portrayal of multiculturalism as excessively calculative. Indeed, depicting multiculturalism as a ‘social contract’ between two ‘opposite sides’ needs to be qualified. In fact, the majority and minorities are more ‘partners’ than ‘sides’. While the metaphor of ‘social contract’ helps in highlighting a sense of reciprocity implied by multiculturalism, the concept of partnership helps in highlighting the commonality of multicultural goals and purposes. This is why the 1982 paper is titled ‘Multiculturalism for all Australians’. It highlights the fact that ‘unity in diversity’ is the common goal-aspiration carrying with it some duties of mutual engagement and shared participation. It also spells out more clearly than the earlier documents the limits to socio-cultural pluralism and the ‘non-negotiable’ elements of national commitment.

10

Quoted after Chris Bowen ‘Why Sheridan and the Immigration Minister parted company on road to multiculturalism’, The Australian, 16 April 2011; 13

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 To simplify, Australian multiculturalism admits a degree of socio-cultural pluralism – but not the systemic-institutional, political, legal or linguistic pluralism. 11 It envisages cultural and organisational diversity within some limits. It protects the united nation (with multiple traditions but common and overarching national identity and solidarity), the federal Australian state, the single Australian justice system, the common liberaldemocratic political principles and practices (Australian constitution and democracy), and English as the official common language. These ‘common’ and ‘non-negotiable’ elements may be called ‘meta-institutions’ that form a shared ‘institutional umbrella’.

No element of this common umbrella can be waved in the name of rights to cultural identity and diversity.

Again, most of that is widely understood. Most people understand that Australian multiculturalism has never tolerated national separatism, legal pluralism (in the sense of multiple and incompatible legal systems) 12, and pluralism of official languages. Nor has it condoned discriminations and exclusions, even those belonging to ‘venerable’ cultural traditions. Consequently, multicultural approval has never extended to polygamy, violence or discriminatory treatment, even if some such practices are approved by some cultural traditions or religions. It has always been mindful and respectful of ‘common core of institutions, rights and obligations’ (1982:11).

Yet, there have been attempts at such ‘extensions’ of multicultural practice. Such proposals, coming mainly from religious minorities, may prove harmful to multicultural consensus and legitimacy. They are often incompatible with the basic principles of social cohesion (social integration) and equity. Moreover, such radical proposals of ‘extensions’ – that is, moving beyond the integrative, respectful and equitable multiculturalism – de-legitimise multiculturalism politically by undermining support not only in the majority, but also among minorities concerned about equal treatment.

11

‘Multiculturalism must be based on support for a common core of institutions, rights and obligations if group differences are to be reconciled. Except for adaptations of tribal law that may be applicable to some groups of Aboriginals, a socially cohesive Australia requires a legal framework that has one set of provisions applying equally to all members of society, regardless of their origin. … To allow each cultural group freedom to develop its own legal codes, political institutions and practices would threaten the existence of Australia as a cohesive nation.’ (1982:15-16)

12

Except for some elements of indigenous traditional law recognized in some traditional Aboriginal settlements.

14

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Equally dangerous is a conservative backlash – the tendency for reducing multiculturalism to a superficial form of ethnic food, costume and dance. The pressures in this direction – towards trivialisation of cultural diversity – are as strong as the opposite pressures towards its radicalisation. And they are equally dangerous.

The trivialised ‘ornamental multiculturalism’ castrates ethnic cultures of their ‘core values’ and strips them of their creative and inspiring potential. Such trivialised ‘ethnicity’ becomes an embarrassing mask for assimilation. It should be distinguished, though, from some truncated forms of cultural expression that are partial and folkloristic without losing their authenticity.

These ‘drifts’ beyond the robust Australian multiculturalism are worth mentioning because the very concept becomes vulnerable to confusions. As mentioned above, ‘multiculturalism’ starts to mean everything and anything. It suffers from a serious ‘conceptual stretch’ that makes it a hostage of confusing (mis)interpretations and criticisms.

A failure or a quiet achiever?

Do these ‘drifts’ and confusing criticisms indicate that Australian multiculturalism is merely misunderstood – and therefore in need of clarification – or do they also herald a more fundamental problem, namely, that Australian multiculturalism proves a failure, that it does not deliver the promised ‘unity in diversity’, does not produce a cohesive and yet culturally diverse society?

It is legitimate to ask whether or not multicultural visions and policies encourage – perhaps against the intentions of its creators and advocates – dangerous social fragmentation, or even pathological alienation. After all, such pathologies are diagnosed, to varying degree, in all modern societies, including Australia. This question, though, requires a careful consideration and a careful response based on a more systematic assessment.

Even a superficial observation indicates that the countries that adopted multicultural policies – Australia and Canada – are quite successful in maintaining high levels of social stability and egalitarian harmony. Australia, in particular, seems to have a relatively low level of ethno-communal strife, low level of ethnic concentration and separation, low levels of ethno-specific crime, high level of ethnic occupational integration and high level of minority and migrant political engagement and participation. There are no signs of serious ethnic fissures or conflicts, though there are signs of discrimination and economic alienation of Aboriginal peoples, and prejudice against migrants-refugees from South Asia, Middle East and Africa.

15

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 The latter, though can hardly be attributed to multicultural policies because they predate multiculturalism and are diagnosed – often in much stronger form – in societies that have not endorsed multiculturalism.

The problem is that any good assessment-evaluation of complex policies and their outcomes is awfully difficult. There are, of course, numerous assessments, but they often rely on anecdotal ‘evidence’, use absolute (or unrealistic) standards, and prejudge the results. Such assessments do more harm than good – and most of them aim at producing emotional heat, rather than rational light. For example, one can ignore ‘arguments’ that Australian multiculturalism has failed because there is still ethno-racial discrimination, or because some drunken youths occasionally clash over their ‘territory’, or because there are cases of ethno-specific crime, or because there are cases of religious intolerance, or because some hatred graffiti appears in Sydney and Melbourne. It is not that such cases should be ignored – most of them are symptomatic of some real and important social ills – but they cannot constitute evidence for assessment of multicultural policies. Similarly, neither the pathologies of Bradford, mentioned by Mr Cameron, nor the hostile alienation of some Turkish migrants in Frankfurt, as lamented by Ms Merkel, can help us in assessing multiculturalism.

So we must pause before jumping to any general conclusions and look at the relevant information with a cool and unprejudiced manner. And such relevant information is surprisingly hard to find, especially in a most useful (for evaluation) comparative form. 13 We have some good studies of ethno-territorial concentration/segmentation, some studies of ethnic endo/exogamy, some data on occupational concentration/integration, some information about language competence and use, some studies of religious attitudes and orientations, some studies of ethnic stratification and mobility, and some fragmentary data on political attitudes and participation. While the overall impression is of successful outcomes, there are no systematic and comparative studies that would give us a clear, comprehensive and relative (time and space) picture of ethno-cultural relations in Australia and among her counterparts. And this, in turn, makes multiculturalism hostage to persisting speculations and distorted judgements.

13

For notable exceptions are Jupp and Clyne (2011) and Jupp et al. (2007).

16

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 References Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs (1982) Multiculturalism for all Australians. Canberra: AGPS. Australian Ethnic Affairs Council (1977) Australia as a Multicultural Society, Canberra: AGPS. Durkheim, Emile (1933) The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Free Press.

Jupp, James and Michael Clyne (eds) (2011) Multiculturalism and Integration. A Harmonious Relationship. Canberra: ANU E-Press.

Jupp, James, John Nieuwenhuysen and Eric Dawson (eds) (2007) Social Cohesion in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Levey, Geoffrey B. (2010) ‘Liberal multiculturalism’ in D.Ivison (ed) The Ashgate Research Companion to Multiculturalism. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Marcus, Andrew, James Jupp and Peter McDonald (2009) Australian’s Immigration Revolution. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Naraniecki, Alex (2011) ‘Dilemmas of Australian multiculturalism’, paper presented at the Symposium on Immigration and Multiculturalism Today, Melbourne 30 November 2011.

Office of Multicultural Affairs (1989) National Agenda for Multicultural Australia.

Canberra: AGPS, Canberra. Quoted after the web version accessed in Oct 2011: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/agenda/agenda89/executiv. htm

17

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Root and Branch Reform: The Labor Government and the Not-for-Profit Sector Ms Elizabeth Cham

A momentous piece of legislation passed both Houses of Parliament just prior to the running of the Melbourne Cup last year. It established Australia’s first regulator for the not for profit sector, The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC). This sector provides services to Australian arts, culture, sports, environment, medicine, education and recreation. 14 This historic occasion was virtually ignored by the traditional media and the twittersphere, always eager to comment on the new, didn’t notice either. It is astonishing that a sector that touches the lives of 87% of Australians is larger than the transport industry, is twice as big as the finance sector and seven times larger than the mining industry was once again overlooked. It is also astonishing that it had taken government so long to regulate a sector that contributes nearly $43 billion to Australia’s GDP. If one adds the contribution of the 4.6 million volunteers a further $15 billion would be added. It employs more than 8.5% of the workforce and the government provides $810 million in tax breaks to individuals who donate to the sector. One agency alone, Uniting Care, has an annual budget of $2.7billion, a footprint that is larger than McDonalds and employs 36,000 staff and 24,000 volunteers, more people than the coal mining industry. The not-for-profit sector also includes philanthropic trusts and foundations, which provide some of the monies for these charitable bodies. 15 Labor came to power in 2007 on the promise of an extensive reform agenda. Part of this agenda was root and branch reform of the not-for-profit sector. This assurance was treated with a degree of scepticism, as for decades, governments of all persuasions had ignored the sector’s incessant demands for structural reform.

1 November 2012 Senate amendments passed by the House of Representatives; 3 December 2012 Royal Assent received and ACNC commences operation in Melbourne; 10 December 2012 ACNC officially launched in Melbourne by the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. David Bradbury, MP. 14

15Productivity

Commission 2010, Research Report, ‘Contribution of the Not for Profit Sector’, http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/not-for-profit/report ; FACSIA 2005,, Giving Australia Report, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/communities-and-vulnerable-people/publicationsarticles/community-business-partnership-resources/giving-australia-summary-of-findings; ABS (2012) Labour Force, Australia detailed quarterly, November 2012, Cat. No.6291.0.55.003, 13 December 2012.

18

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Previous legislative reviews had resulted in piecemeal reforms; few recommendations were adopted resulting in little change to the sector.

This time however, it appeared the promises would be translated into tangible and significant reforms. Within months, the Prime Minister announced that the government would ask the Productivity Commission to conduct a landmark inquiry into the sector, including the value of volunteers. Simultaneously, a commitment was made to restore the sector’s independence by removing the infamous gag imposed by the Howard government. 16 On coming to government, Howard had surprised the sector by declaring not-forprofits to be unelected ‘single-issue groups’, ‘elites’, and he pledged his government would not be owned by any special interests. His government introduced confidentiality clauses in funding agreements which prevented organisations speaking to the media. He encouraged, funded and commended those who provided soup kitchens for the poor or recruited volunteers to plant trees or pick up rubbish, but defunded and attacked those critical of government policy and accused them of engaging in public advocacy, of being political. 17 The Howard government’s analysis and treatment of the sector overturned a traditional philosophy that viewed non-profit organisations as an integral component of a pluralist democracy. One of its most vital roles was to lobby and disagree with government policy where this was necessary, in order to represent the interests of the sector’s constituents, often the most disadvantaged and fragile members of the community. The sector was also acknowledged as being the source of ideas on the society we could aspire to develop. 18

Prime Minister, Media Release, 3 October 2008; Press Release, 2013 ;Government Legislates Again Gag . Penny Wong announced that the government would introduce legislation into the Parliament next week restoring the sector’s independence by (finally) at a not-for-profit reform group. no advocay 16

Staples, Joan 2008, ‘Attacks on NGO “accountability”: Questions of governance or the logic of public choice theory? In Jo Barraket (ed.), Strategic Issues for the Not-for-Profit Sector, Allen & Unwin, ; Howard, John 1996, ‘The Liberal Tradition: The Beliefs and Values Which Guide the Federal Government, 1996 Menzies Lecture, Sir Robert Menzies Lecture Trust, www.menzieslecture.org./1996 17

Staples, Joan 2006, ‘NGOs out in the Cold: The Howard Government policy towards NGOs’, Democratic Audit of Australia, Discussion Paper 19/06, p.4.

18

19

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 What is the Not-for-Profit Sector?

When Bill Shorten, the Minister responsible for implementing the reform agenda, addressed the Canberra Press Club in 2011 he observed that despite its size diversity and reach, the sector appeared to have little or no influence on national policy and there was little understanding in the community of the sector’s needs or demands. He exclaimed that there was no sense among most not- for- profits that they were even part of a ‘sector’. 19 How and why is this so?

The sweep of not-for-profit bodies has many collective names: the non-profit sector, non-government sector, the NGO sector, the charitable sector, the community sector, the voluntary sector, the third sector, the independent sector and internationally civil society.

The not- for- profit sector sits between the family, government and business. Its members voluntarily join together to create organisations whose only purpose is to enhance the common good. They come together to provide a service, to facilitate an activity or to advance a cause. They differ fundamentally from business organisations in that their intent is not to make a profit: their intent is altruistic. ‘Nonprofit organisations are the organisational manifestation of commitments by various groups of people to provide a service, to facilitate an activity or to advance a cause’. 20 They can be seen as social glue. National and international research confirms that not-for-profits and charitable organisations increase trust and social capital in societies. 21 Without the sector, some of the most socially significant advances in human history would not have occurred. These include the abolition of slavery, civil rights gained by Afro-Americans and black South Africans.

Shorten, Bill 2011, ‘Passing Round the Hat for Change: This Labor Government and the Not-for-Profit’, Speech 27 May, p.4, Canberra.

19

20

Lyons, Mark 1993 Australia’s Non-Profit Sector, CACOM, Sydney3 p.31.

21

Cox, Eva, and Peter Caldwell. 2000. ‘Making policy social.’ Pp. 43 – 73 in Social capital and public policy in Australia, edited by Ian Winter. Melbourne: National Library of Australia; Cox, Eva, and Peter Caldwell. 2000. ‘Making policy social.’ Pp. 43 – 73 in Social capital and public policy in Australia, edited by Ian Winter. Melbourne: National Library of Australia

20

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Australia also has a proud history of not-for-profit organisations being an important aspect of national life since white settlement. The first charity, The Benevolent Society, was established only 25 years after European settlement and this year celebrates its 200th birthday. 22 Australian’s not-for-profit sector is relatively large. When adjusted for population, it is comparable in size to that of the United States and larger than the United Kingdom’s equivalent. It is more diverse and has a more extensive footprint than its counterparts in both the USA and England. 23 Today 600,000 not-for-profit organisations operate throughout Australia providing services from the cradle to the grave. To give a flavour of their diversity, they include: many medical services, child care centres, the Parents and Citizens clubs, independent schools, tennis, soccer and football clubs, community radio stations, aged care facilities, scouts clubs, leagues clubs, historical societies, environmental group, heritage groups such as National Trust, Historical Societies, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Churches and services they run such as Uniting Care’s Drug Injecting facility in Kings Cross, the flower clubs and associations such as the Orchid Society. Young Lawyers Association who operate pro bono legal clinics and services to the iconic football clubs which make up the AFL who also run VicKick and similarly for alll NRL clubs.Sporting clubs including the national network of Life Saving Clubs who developed and run Young Nippers.

Characteristics of the Sector The great majority are small organisations who rely on volunteers and have inadequate resources. The core aspect of most not-for-profits is the centrality of values to the organisations’ operations. Unlike business, they also have complex revenue generation and they rely on volunteers. As Peter Drucker says what is the bottom line when there is no bottom line?. Because they are dealing with long term social problems it can be difficult to judge organisational performance on purely corporate like criteria. 24

22

http://www.benevolent.org.au/200--year--celebration

Lyons, Mark 2001, Third Sector: The Contribution of nonprofit and cooperative enterprises in Australia, p.99, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

23

24

Drucker, Peter 2006, Managing the Non-Profit Organisation: Practices and Principles, Harper Business.

21

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 This kaleidoscope of bodies is vital for the thriving of individuals, families and society. Sector organisations are pervasive within the community, yet most people think our society is organised as a duality; Business and government, not for profit organisations are usually overlooked.

Most Australians do not understand the disparate and diverse nature of the sector.

Typically, they can only identify a handful: the Salvation Army, Red Cross, YMCA, Royal Flying Doctor Service, Vinnies (more formally known as the Society of St Vincent de Paul) and The Smith Family.

Another misperception is that State and Federal governments contribute most of the funding to not-for-profits. In fact, only about 30% is received from government grants and contracts. Some 55% of non-profit operating revenue is self generated from the sale of goods and services. Donations, philanthropic grants and investments contribute a further 15%. 25 One of the paradoxical features of the not-for-profits is their very diversity contributes to their fragmentation as a sector. This can even prevent them from seeing as a sector which stymies their ability to act as one. 26 To date it has struggled to present a strong, coherent identity to the community. It appears the only narrative understood by the broader public is that the sector has high administrative costs; the community insists that the monies they provide through fundraising can only be spent on services with low or preferably no administrative costs. Instead of rejecting this narrative and explaining services cannot be provided efficiently or effectively without institutional structure, the sector has embraced this unrealistic expectation.

The governance of not-for-profit boards is unlike any other. The sector is governed by voluntary boards or committees of management and most board members receive no payment for their time, knowledge and expertise.

Finally, the not-for-profit organisations have rich and deep knowledge that is invaluable to the Australian community. The Industry Commission, in its first report on Community Service Organisations in 1995, acknowledged that the sector was a ‘repository of knowledge and skills’ of human service delivery. 27 Lyons, Mark et al 2007, ‘Capital Access of Nonprofit Organisations’, Agenda, Vol.14, No.2, pp.99-110.Available at : http://epress.anu.edu.au/agenda/014/02/14-2- A-2.pdf

25

Lyons, Mark & Passey, A 2006, ‘Need Public Policy Ignore the Third Sector? Government Policy in Australia and the United Kingdom’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.65, Issue 3, pp.91-92.

26

27

Productivity Commission 2010, op.cit., p.xxv.

22

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Why Is Reform Needed As outlined above the sector is enormous and is growing. From 2000 to 2007, it expanded at an average rate of 7.7% per year. 28 Our official ignorance of this sector is breathtaking. Until the 2010 Productivity Commission Report and the earlier work of the late Professor Mark Lyons as part of the international comparative study of not-for-profits, there was virtually no data available on the public record. Even now, apart from a small number of academics and limited work undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there has been little systematic collection and analysis of information.

Not-for-profit organisations themselves have agitated for regulatory reform of their sector for decades. An indicator of their commitment to this is the sheer volume of submissions that they have made to the four previous inquiries into this area. They made 12,920 pages of public submissions, attended 56 days of hearings and 45 site visits. 29 These four previous government inquiries had all commented on the complex and conflicting state and federal regulation, absence of national framework, haphazard growth in regulation. All had recommended a single independent national regulator. 30 Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) After the Productivity Commission released its report in February 2010, the federal government announced its acceptance of the recommendations in it and undertook to legislate the creation of a new national regulator for the Australian not for profit sector and associated reforms. The legislation would:

28

Productivity Commission, 2010, op.cit., p.xxiii.

National Roundtable of Nonprofit Organisations 2009, ‘Review of the Contribution of the Nonprofit Sector’, submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry, 1 June, p.4.

29

Industry Commission 1995, Charitable Organisations in Australia: An Inquiry into Community Social Welfare Organisations, Melbourne. Inquiry commissioned by Assistant Treasurer, George Gear 16 December 1993; Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations, 2001.Inquiry established by Prime Minister John Howard 18 September 2000, Chair Hon Ian Sheppard AO QC, other members Robert Fitzgerald AM and David Gonski AC; Senate Standing Committee on Economics 2008, Inquiry into the Disclosure Regime for Charities and Not-for-Profit Organisations, established 18 June; Productivity Commission 2010, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, overseen by Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald AM. 30

23

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 •

•

•

Create The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission (ACNC) –an independent statutory office, that would be a new national regulator, a onestop shop for regulation and reporting.

Introduce a statutory definition of charity. It accepted that the present definitions are outmoded, based on over 400 years of common law, are unnecessarily complex and lack clear guiding principles. The new definition would also replace 178 pieces of legislation and 180 different State and Federal regulators.

Target non-profit tax concessions more effectively.

To demonstrate the seriousness of its intent, the 2011 federal budget allocated $53.6 million over four years to support these new arrangements. 31 The legislation to enact these reforms was passed by both houses of parliament on 1st November 2012.

The Role of the ACNC The ACNC has three objectives: • • •

To maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the Australian not-for-profit sector; To support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative Australian not-for-profit sector; To promote the reduction of unnecessary regulatory obligations on the Australian not-for-profit sector.(ACNC p.15, accessed 1 February 2013.)

The charitable bodies’ responsibility for reporting to the ACNC varies according on their size. The charities had requested this during the consultation phase to prevent the potentially onerous requirements for small organisations with minimal resources.

• • •

31

Charities classified as ‘small’ (less than $250,000) will not need to lodge financial reports with the ACNC Medium from $250,000 to $1 million revenue lodge financial reports Large more than $1 million must prepare and lodge financial reports and audits

Shorten, Bill 2011, op.cit., p.9

24

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Part of the governments thinking in establishing the ACNC was to reduce the regulatory burden on not-for-profit bodies. The ACNC would work with other government departments to develop a ‘report once, use often’ reporting framework or ‘Charity Passport’. This should reduce the need for charities registered with the ACNC to reproduce their corporate and financial information every time they deal with a government agency. 32 The ACNC will be in a position to provide useful information on the contribution of the sector, which could be used to inform policy and educate the Australian community about the unique contribution the sector makes to a civil society.

Important Areas Not Yet Addressed At this stage, the Commission has no interest in the bulk of organisations that make up the sector. It is only looking at the 58,000 organisations that have tax deductible status. The other 542,000 incorporated and unincorporated associations have no reporting requirements laid on them. This is understandable if one is only looking through a taxation lens. However, it is a lost opportunity for government and the broader public to fully understand the extraordinary contribution the people within these organisations make to ensuring Australia is a civil society 33.

These reforms are very welcome but given the Government’s stated aim of improving “transparency and accountability”, there is still a gaping hole in the regulatory framework that needs urgent attention - philanthropy. So far the reforms have ignored philanthropy, particularly those charitable trusts and foundations, established in perpetuity by the Wills of generous dead people and administered by trustee companies.

ACNC 2013, ‘Snapshot of Reforms’, pp.14-16. http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Pblctns/Rpts/Imp_up/ACNC/Publications/Imp_Rep/Imp_Up_TOC.aspx 32

33http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/About_ACNC/NFP_reforms/Background_NFP/ACNC/Edu/NFP_backgr

ound.aspx

25

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 The Philanthropic Component of the Not-for-Profit Sector Surprisingly, at the beginning of the 21st Century, and after more than 100 years of organised Australian philanthropy, the only legal obligation upon philanthropic entities in Australia is to provide an audited annual report to the Taxation Office.

This information is treated as private and confidential. There is no legal or regulatory requirement for Australia’s philanthropic trusts and foundations to issue a public report and only a sophisticated few do so.

As a consequence, for the overwhelming majority of foundations they administer, we do not know: who they are; what they fund; how much they give; how they make funding decisions; the capital base of each foundation; the amount distributed to the community; the beneficiaries of these monies; the Trustees; how the Trustees are appointed and the original benefactor’s wishes. As Stephen Fry might say, ‘that is an awful lot of general ignorance!’

It is especially concerning that this is so, as the rubbery figures available estimate that these bodies distribute $1billion annually to the Australian community.

This contrasts strongly with the situation overseas. For example in the United States and the United Kingdom philanthropic trusts and foundations, for reporting purposes are treated as any other not-for-profit body. In the United States for example, this springs from a mid-twentieth century philosophy that philanthropic foundations should have ‘glass pockets’. It begs the question, why the Australian reform legislation overlooked such an important component of the sector.

Could it be that philanthropic money is still - incorrectly - regarded as solely private money? In 2008, the Australian Treasury stated clearly that as most individuals who established philanthropic foundation were on the highest marginal tax rate (45%) therefore the Government (taxpayers) effectively provide a subsidy of 45 cents for each dollar donated to a grant-making philanthropic foundation. 34 It can be very easy to underestimate the power of philanthropy as is demonstrated by recent research.Between 2002-2010 billionaires gave over $118 million in philanthropic grants to one-hundred anti-climate groups, including 17 million to the well known American Enterprise Institute and $11 million was to the Tea Party.

The Treasury, 2008 ‘Improving the Integrity of Prescribed Private Funds (PPFs), Discussion Paper, Canberra, November, p.5.

34

26

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 This demonstrates massive philanthropically funded power to influence public opinion and debate. 35 Conclusion The reforms that established the ACNC and the foreshadowed accompanying legislation are to be celebrated. They are largely due to the passionate advocacy of the Minister for Finance, Bill Shorten, who understood the tangible and intangible impact of the sector on making Australia a truly civil society. ‘You build lives, you build well-being, you build better futures, bigger opportunities, greater self-esteem.

You build the common wealth of a nation, a town a city. You build a better Australia’. 36 These important structural reforms are, unfortunately, under threat. Kevin Andrews and the Liberal Party have said they will abolish the Commission and retain the current Common Law definition of charity if they come to power at the next election 37. Their rationale is that it was uncalled for and involves an unnecessary level of regulation and red tape with a concomitant administrative burden and cost to the not-for-profit sector. They have accepted David Gonski’s view that the new regulatory framework puts a more onerous burden on directors and office bearers than is experienced within for-profit companies. There may be a case for some fine tuning of the Commission’s operation – certainly the inclusion of philanthropy in its remit – but abolition would return the sector to its previous neglected, little understood and undervalued position.

Elizabeth Cham has worked in philanthropy for over two decades, including ten years as CEO of Philanthropy Australia. She is currently a doctoral student writing about the role of trustee companies in Australian philanthropy.

35Goldenberg,

Suzanne, ‘US “dark money” funds sceptics’, The Guardian Weekly, Vol.188, No.11, 22-28 February

2013, pp.1,4-5.

36

Shorten, Bill 2011, op.cit., p.9.

Andrews, Kevin 2012, ‘The Associations of Civil Society and the Role of Government’, speech to Associations Forum, 25 July 2012; Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Bill 2012, 2nd Reading Speech, 11 September 2012,House of Representatives, Hansard, pp.10255-10264.

37

27

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Minister Kate Lundy Minister for Multicultural Affairs

It gives me great pleasure to be here representing the Federal Labor Government at today’s conference focusing on the support we provide our diverse communities into the future (“Delivering Diversity in the 21st Century”).

I would like to thank the Australian Multicultural Community Services staff and volunteers – and other service providers in the room today – for the work you undertake in our community. Your efforts and commitment to helping those who need it is invaluable.

It is multiculturalism that makes Australia the vibrant and rich nation it is today.

Now a land of over 23 million, more than forty-five per cent of all Australians were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas.

We speak more than 400 languages and identify with more than 270 ancestries.

We are a successful multicultural nation because we respect our differences but are united by common values and goals through the full enfranchisement of Australian citizenship.

We acknowledge the benefits our cultural diversity brings.

We invest in our people to have the best possible opportunities– whether our newest residents or those who have been here for generations.

We invest in maintaining safe and socially inclusive communities. This helps provide a sense of belonging and a sense of unity.

Our approach to multiculturalism permeates all Government programs.

The Gillard Labor Government is committed to acknowledging and leveraging the benefits our cultural diversity brings – socially, culturally and economically and we invest to provide the best possible opportunities for all Australians.

These are the underlying principles of our multicultural policy ‘The People of Australia’.

28

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Under this policy, the Gillard Labor Government have: • •

•

• • •

•

Established the Australian Multicultural Council (AMC) to act as an independent champion for multiculturalism Through the AMC, appointed 57 People of Australia Ambassadors to recognise their contribution and honor people in our community who have a strong commitment to inclusion and social cohesion We have, implemented the Anti-Racism Partnership and Strategy through the Australian Human Rights Commission to combat pockets of racism in our community Appointed an full time Race Discrimination Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Launched the Racism.itstopswithme campaign; Strengthened our Access and Equity policy to ensure all Australians have equitable access to Government services – including requiring every Commonwealth Department and Agency to develop and be accountable for a Multicultural Plan Provided grants for Multicultural Youth Sports Partnerships and Multicultural Arts and Festivals

As most in this room would know, the Gillard Government’s multicultural policy is underpinned by our settlement strategies for new migrants, refugees and humanitarian entrants and investment in local programs that enhance social cohesion in our communities such as the Diversity and Social Cohesion Program.

Our world class settlement services, now funded under a range of Commonwealth programs including Humanitarian Settlement Services, the Settlement Grants Program, and the Adult Migrant English Program have assisted in the settlement of over 7 million people in Australia.

These services will also continue to support our recent commitment to increase our humanitarian intake to 20,000 people. The Federal Government has committed extra funding to support our existing programs to manage the increased numbers and complexities of people arriving with this increased intake – ensuring those newest to our shores have the ‘leg up’ to fully participate in our community.

To further support these programs and build on the initiatives in The People of Australia policy, I was pleased to be able to recently announce a $15 million strategic investment in new measures that empower our multicultural communities and support service providers working in these communities.

This new funding will complement and extend the valuable contribution service providers and community organisations deliver their communities.

29

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 The investment will include: •

A partnership between the Federal Government, the Scanlon Foundation, the Migration Council of Australia and Murdoch Childrens Research Institute to engage local coordinators in up to one hundred communities across Australia.

The coordinators will not duplicate services.

They will work closely with existing service providers to improve connections to programs delivered by the three spheres of government and community based organisations.

This is a localised place based solution.

Local communities and neighbourhoods will be engaged to identify needs and work with their local coordinator to drive solutions.

•

•

With this investment we will also commit to providing support to improve infrastructure within our multicultural communities. We will invest in places that enhance social inclusion and bring together individuals and families in the community We will commit additional funding to the Diversity and Social Cohesion Program to try to address the unprecedented demand of the current program.

We will also work with communities at risk of social discord to continue to promote social inclusion and to build resilience.

•

Along with these measures the Gillard Government is providing an additional investment of $1 million to increase language translation services within Government.

This will ensure that all Australians have access to the information they need to know about government services and programs.

This is a key component of the Gillard Government’s recent commitment following the Access and Equity Inquiry: Multicultural Access and Equity—Respecting Diversity. Improving Responsiveness.

30

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 Successful multiculturalism also involves a sustained effort in being innovative, working together and continuing to invest in social infrastructure to maintain socially cohesive communities.

I am confident that this latest range of measures will continue to drive this.

The appointment recently of a Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Matt Thistlethwaite, directly responsible to portfolio is demonstrative of the Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s commitment to our multicultural communities, and follows my promotion to Minister for Multicultural Affairs early last year.

I am proud of what the Gillard Labor Government has been able to achieve so far in the Multicultural Affairs portfolio through the measures I have outlined today.

However, what I am more proud of is the recognition of multicultural affairs in policies across portfolios and the way the Labor Government’s broader agenda will support our multicultural communities.

Our paid parental leave scheme, a stronger, fairer health and aged care system – including the CALD aged care strategy, dental care, the National Broadband Network, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and Gonski education reforms will provide support where our multicultural communities most need it.

The Gillard Labor Government has listened to multicultural communities. As a result there will be an increased focus in from this Government on aged care, sustainable employment and language services.

Minister for Health and Ageing Mark Butler recognised the growing need for culturally appropriate aged care services when he announced the CALD specific Aged Care Strategy late last year.

We know that around 20 per cent of people aged over 65 years were born outside Australia and by 2021, that number will rise to 30 per cent.

This strategy will inform the way Government supports the aged care sector to deliver care that is appropriate and sensitive to the needs of older people from diverse backgrounds.

31

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 The aged care strategy will: • •

• •

•

•

Facilitate the employment of appropriate bilingual staff in the aged care system Enhance the capacity of existing and emerging ethnic community organisations as potential aged care service providers across the aged care continuum Develop relevant service models and partnerships that facilitate the involvement of ethnic communities in delivering aged care; Conduct a ‘rolling review’ of the National Aged Care Advocacy Program (NACAP) to include an emphasis on promoting, supporting and maximising access to advocacy for older people from ethnic backgrounds, their families and carers; Ensure that the Aged Care Complaints Scheme is promoted to multicultural communities and provides access to interpreting and translating services; an Utilise multicultural organisations to provide cultural competency training for promotion and incorporation into all aged care services.

This strategy ensures that language or culture do not act as barriers for our communities to receiving high quality aged care.

Throughout this year, I, along with Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon Bill Shorten MP, and Minister for Employment Participation, the Hon Kate Ellis MP have conducted a series of multicultural employment roundtables in communities across Australia.

These roundtables highlighted significant issues with unemployment and underemployment amongst new migrants or new migrant communities.

The roundtables identified barriers for many in our migrant communities seeking a job or Australian work experience and indicated that many people were facing discrimination in the workforce.

In response, we are committed to working with communities and employers to ensure no one is disadvantaged from getting a job, including through better engagement and partnerships between government and community organisations to provide tangible employment outcomes.

This will include a refocusing of our languages and literacy programs to ensure that programs are embedded in effective pathways to further training, work experience and employment.

32

MULTICULTURAL CONFERENCE – STRENGTEHNING DIVERSITY 2013 This work will be supported by the Government’s Settlement Language Pathways to Employment program and the Employment Guide for Migrants launched by Minister Bill Shorten recently.

I also note, local and innovative thinking in this area such as the work being undertaken by the Melbourne Employment Forum or the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia (FECCA) Harmony in the Workplace project to address issues around workplace culture.

The Government recognises that Australia’s cultural diversity contributes substantially to our capacity to innovate, to be productive and to generate economic prosperity.

Leveraging the advantages our diverse people bring is central to our economic and social prosperity in an increasingly globalised world. Our people-to-people links, cultural awareness and language competencies play a vital role in strengthening our business, trade, education and diplomatic relations in our region and around the world.

As a Government we must always be looking to build on our success. That is why the Government is taking active steps – as demonstrated in the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper – to have a roadmap that gives Australia a nation building plan for the future recognising the benefits that our cultural diversity will bring in making the most of the opportunities ahead.

This goal relies on the Gillard Government’s commitment to building on our strengths. Investing $153.2 million to increase our knowledge and appreciation of Asian languages, cultures and countries from an early age and our investment in the National Broadband Network to reach across out of Australia will contribute to our success.

The Gillard Labor Government is committed to a successful multicultural Australia – one of fairness, respect and inclusion. A nation where we maintain the preservation of our different cultures and cultural identities within a unified society; and this is reflected in our continued investment in this area across the whole-of-government.

I thank you for the work that you do. It has been a pleasure speaking with you today and I look forward to continuing to work with you all into the future.

33