Reflections on the Multicultural Framework Review – Terms of Reference
Written to the Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs
We write this submission from the Royal Brisbane Women’s Hospital on Sunday 19th of March, 2022 while Dr Farvardin Daliri OAM is receiving his 4th dose of chemotherapy for stage 4 bowel cancer. We do not feel there is any need (or time) to establish the list of credentials and extensive experience of either author in the community development, multiculturalism, settlement and social cohesion space.
We’d like to begin by sharing how deeply disappointed we are with the extremely short timeframe afforded to communities and organisations that, according to the Terms of Reference, represent 51.5% of Australians. We are equally disheartened by the lack of effort that went into adequately promoting awareness of the submission deadline.
In consultation with a number of peak bodies and community organisations, it has become very clear to us that quite a number of them feel that they deserved more time to be able to consult with the communities, clients or staff to draft and consolidate a response; some even requested an extension and were denied.
We wish to state here that we request an extension to this process to allow community organisations from across this country to be able to engage their communities and clients with adequate time to consolidate and put in writing their thoughts and contributions as well.
Reflections on the Multicultural Framework Review - Terms of Reference
The Multicultural Framework Review - Terms of Reference begins by stating that more than half of Australian residents (51.5%) are either born overseas or have at least one parent born overseas. It then goes on to state that Australia is a majority-migrant nation and one of the most successful and cohesive multicultural societies in the world, and apparently, “Culturally and linguistically diverse communities” are integral members of our vibrant, multicultural society.
Already, the document has failed to acknowledge that Australia is an almost entirely migrant nation, and the only exceptions to that are the First Nations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of the continent. The use of language applied in the Terms of Reference implies that 51.5% are “migrants”, and the rest are not. Already, the power dynamic is being established in the language applied and we have another subtle reminder that some Australians are more Australian than others.
If we wish to foster social cohesion, equity, inclusion and an end to racial discrimination, the way to express this sentiment would be to acknowledge that this nation is in fact an almost entirely migrant nation built on the land of First Nations People; social cohesion requires at least that amount of respect afforded to all those who live here.
Referring to “Culturally and linguistically diverse” (CALD) communities as an “integral” part of society, as much as it is meant to be a compliment and foster “a sense of belonging”, is actually a very condescending use of language that sets in place the white Australian cultural normativity, and thanks the diverse people for adding “their bit”. The use of the term “Multicultural Australia” to refer to non-white Australians is equally patronising and again reinforces the false narrative that non-white Australians are some special, smaller segment of Australia who need to be called “Multicultural” Australians.
Terms such as CALD and “Multicultural Australia” can either be used to describe the entirety of the nation, or retired altogether and no longer used to describe exclusively non-white Australians in a way that others them as if they are a subset of Australians.
In the way it is currently used in the policy context, it is applied euphemistically to refer to non-white migrants and then suddenly, when it is beneficial, it is conveniently expanded to include any European migrants when the inclusion of non-Anglo Europeans boosts “representation” or “cultural diversity”. This is especially apparent in public office, academia and positions of leadership in the corporate world and third sector where Australians from European backgrounds, who literally (or technically could have) migrated here during the period of strict enforcement of the White Australia policy, are suddenly included in the broad category of “cultural groups”.
This is a very subtle but powerful use of language that affects the policy framework, academic inquiry, and the lives of real humans who might have been here for decades or even generations.
These euphemisms for non-white Australians have no end and include terms such as; ethnic communities, diverse communities, cultural groups, multi-faith communities, NESB, ESL, PoC, BIPOC. All of them are euphemisms, intentionally or unintentionally, for “divergent” people, as opposed to “everyday Australians”, “hard-working Aussies”, or non-culturally diverse Australians. Euphemisms and dog-whistling politics go hand in hand, and we ask the department to deeply reflect on this and engage some People of Colour with lived experience of racial marginalisation, as well as professional experience, to consult on the language used in policies that will reverberate throughout the lives of people for decades to come.
It is obvious that the use of the terminology of ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’ (CALD) communities by the Department of Home Affairs, and that of ‘diaspora communities’ by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is central to the failings of Multicultural Policy in our country thus far and our collective ability to address issues of racial discrimination, social cohesion and equity.
In the Multicultural Access and Equity Policy Guide for Australian Government departments and agencies, “access” is discussed only in terms of being able to connect with services and not the experience of new Australians with these services; nor does it acknowledge the unconscious bias, the overt prejudice or the engrained systemic racism that permeates all aspects of life on this continent.
In the same document, the term Equity, once again, focuses on the delivery of services that are generally for recently arrived Australians; it uses the vague language of CALD and fails to acknowledge that equity requires addressing systemic racial discrimination beyond the evidence of racial vilification that we like to focus on.
The document itself recognises the policy target groups are; migrants with low levels of English language proficiency; refugee and humanitarian entrants; visibly different migrants; newly arrived communities and individuals with low levels of knowledge of the Australian system; other migrants experiencing difficulties in accessing services based on age, gender, sexuality, disability, youth or coming from collectivist cultures.
This use of the term “visibly different” migrants in the middle of all of that seems intentionally vague, and though it might have been some attempt at acknowledging racial prejudice based on a person’s appearance, it does this in an obtuse way and seems to consider all “CALD” people as either newly arrived, or culturally “integrated”.
Upon close scrutiny, the Multicultural Policy framework of Australia has only marginally evolved over the past century with regard to how it speaks about, decides for, and treats non-white citizens; the access to entry has been widened, but the perspective of cultural superiority and underlying intention of assimilation and integration has not been erased. The experience of non-European Australians (People of Colour) who have been here for five years, five decades, or five generations, is continually rendered invisible, and this is perhaps an attempt to feign “successful integration” and ignore racial discrimination in its subtle and pervasive forms.
When the Multicultural Framework Review - Terms of Reference states that 51.5% of the Australian population is born overseas or has one parent born overseas, then it is important for us to ask, “why does the work of the department and the focus of policy, continue to be on the basic services required by refugees, and only their “integration” into society?”. What about those who have been here five, ten or twenty years? What about the racism experienced by those who have been here two decades or three generations i.e the 51.5% of Australia that the policy framework is supposedly meant to be supporting?
For decades, the persistence of the Australian Multicultural policy framework to focus on new arrivals, language skills, basic services and the subtle and explicit use of terms such as “integration” points to a number of issues that require attention if we are to truly become a “Successful Multicultural Society”:
The Saviourism that permeates this and other sectors and its persistent need to treat non-European Australians like they just arrived off the boat. Non-European Australians (People of Colour) from across the globe have been settling here for generations, and we still live in a racially segregated society along the lines of the distribution of social capital and power. Our work with Amnesty International Australia was again indicative of this approach.
Over the decades, the two distinct and alternating positions that policy from various departments and many governments has taken has been to either treat non-European migrants as a threat to “our way of life” or national security, or an opportunity for entitled saviourism that fails to recognise the humanity, expertise or lived experience of those who have long settled here.
The systemic racism within the NGO and service delivery sector that connects with government, which sees non-European Australians continuously marginalised, ignored and excluded from positions of influence and decision-making while Anglo and European Australians occupy positions of influence over their lives.
White Normativity and the cultural decentering of non-white Australians through the use of euro-centric perspectives of “multicultural” communities. The language, framing and subtext of government, media and the NGO space communications, continues to portray a collective perspective that non-white / non-European Australians are a new and added element of this nation, and not the very bones and muscles of this nation, as much as white Australians.
The marginalisation of non-European Australians in the workforce, in public office, in the media and in academia by ignoring systemic racism and focusing on the settlement of arrivals and the economic benefit they bring. The way in which the so-called “multicultural Australians” that have recently arrived are spoken to, and about, impacts the lives of all People of Colour because it perpetuates the lie that we all just got here 5 minutes ago.
The Terms of Reference also state that since we are recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now an important opportunity to capture and reflect on the lessons learned from the pandemic; and even though we know that some Australians where 3 times more likely to die from COVID simply because they weren’t Anglo, we still fail to even acknowledge the crucial requirements of being able to address this damning evidence:
Centering (not marginally including) Expertise and Lived Experience.
The inclusion of a handful of “white-adjusted” individuals or newly arrived Australians without the adequate level of racial literacy to engage in robust dialogue can be seen as an intentional reinforcing of the power dynamic that stifles true input; this is a phenomenon that we as an organisation have already discussed with several peak bodies who are also concerned by this tactic. The disrespectfully short timeframe afforded to us to contribute a submission for this very terms of reference is yet another example of this.
Addressing the subtle superiority in the “Discourse of Diversity”
The language used by the various departments has not evolved or included lived experience expertise or academic opinion, and as such, we are being subjected to outdated, inappropriate, offensive and ineffectual language such as “CALD”, Diverse Communities, Multi-Faith Groups, Ethnic Communities, Multicultural Groups, NESB, ESL and a range of others.
This use of language not only fails to address the needs of social cohesion and inclusion (since they are inherently othering), they continue to diminish and marginalise Australians from non-European backgrounds decades, and even generations, after they become citizens of Australia.
Health disparity exists along the lines of “Race”
The suspected apprehension to address the long-known issue of health disparity and evolve the ineffective ”Discourse of Diversity” to a more granular and specific language of both race (broadly) and ethnicity (specifically) has been evidenced in the reluctance of state and federal governments to use CALD data points in assessing the testing, infection and mortality rate of the virus on various communities. An extensive amount of academic literature already exists in the Australian context and internationally, that points to the disparities in health service access as well as disparity in mortality rates in areas such as pediatrics and communicable diseases to cardiology and oncology.
Even with the vague language of CALD, the data has indicated massive inequities in the COVID death rate among first-generation migrants compared to the general population. Even though Australians born overseas make up just 26% of the population, ABS data shows there were 6.8 Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 compared to 2.3 Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 for people born in Australia. And people born in the Middle East had the highest death rate at 29.3 deaths per 100,000 people.
All of this is in a climate where the “healthy migrant effect” (HME) is also an academically recognised reality. HME recognises that migrants generally arrive to Australia with better health indicators than their Australian-born counterparts, and yet after 2 years they are the victims of systemic health inequity and are experiencing worse health than the Australian average. That is clear evidence of a racial health disparity.
The response of the NSW government to the request of cross-checking COVID mortality with first language spoken has been referred to as “fierce resistance” by some academics. This type of position and blatant denial of data rights doesn’t indicate a position that would inspire confidence in the various governments’ intentions and commitments to address the long-known health gap between white Australians and non-European Australians.
Further to this point, the term CALD, as we have mentioned, convolutes the issue by including the non-Anglo yet European background cohort of Australians in the category of CALD when it suits the government, and as such, clouds the true story of racial disparity in health access and outcomes.
The People of Australia—Australia's Multicultural Policy launched on 17 February 2011, had among its principles and announced initiatives;
The implementation of a national anti-racism strategy
Strengthening the access and equity framework
A commitment to a just, inclusive and socially cohesive society where everyone can participate in the opportunities that Australia offers.
Though noble, none of these objectives can actually be achieved if the language of racial discrimination is consistently and intentionally watered down with the use of terms such as “CALD” or “Multicultural” communities, or “Diverse” people. This issue was the subject of Erfan Daliri’s address at the most recent FECCA conference in Melbourne in 2022. A transcript of that speech is available upon request.
The Australian Multicultural Council, launched on 22 August 2011, had a remit that included strengthening access and equity policy, research and advisory functions and assisting with cultural diversity activities.
And this, too, comes across as empty political rhetoric when the discourse of diversity continues to make use of language that reinforces White Australian cultural normativity and, in its very usage, continues to “other” non-white Australians.
The phrase “successful integration of migrants” is on the department's own “Harmony” day website, calling us to “celebrate our diversity” whilst systemic racism continues to hold back careers, life expectancy, and racial marginalisation in government, on boards, in the media and in the criminal justice system.
Further to that, funding to conduct research continues to go to organisations and groups that are not led by lived experience expertise and are instead led by European men with no lived experience of racism.
We have already spoken directly to organisations such as Amnesty International Australia, HOST International and Melbourne University about how they could improve their research, reporting and campaigning by addressing their internal issues of systemic racial marginalisation if they wish to investigate and report on the lives and lived experience of People of Colour.
The People of Australia policy committed to an independent inquiry into the responsiveness of Australian Government services to Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse communities, which was launched in November 2011, and still, the language of CALD continues to convolute the issue of racism and derail the progress towards eliminating racial discrimination.
The National Anti-Racism Strategy, launched in August 2012, had the objectives of creating awareness, identifying and promoting good practice, and empowering action to prevent and reduce racism, and still, to this day, we are yet to have a real and robust discourse about the true forms of systemic racial discrimination that People of Colour face in this country, whether they have been here 4 years or 4 generations.
If our Multicultural policy framework is to be successful in fostering the goals of equity, inclusion and social cohesion, then the penchant for focusing on overt racial vilification and abuse, rather than the engrained forms of cultural superiority and marginalisation in education, employment, health, media and politics, will need to be finally addressed; it is already being discussed and acknowledged by academics, activists, experts, peak bodies and community leaders, across the country, and we urge to department to engage with us on that level.
“Harmony” Day
How did The International Day for The Elimination of Racial Discrimination become “Harmony Day”, and more importantly, can we discuss the impact of this piece of literary acrobatics on addressing systemic racism in Australia and our efforts towards actually fostering a society that IS harmonious and equitable?
This day was created by the United Nations and is observed annually to commemorate the massacre in Sharpeville, South Africa, when police opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration against apartheid in 1960. This day is the world’s way of saying “we will eliminate racial discrimination” and we now have peak bodies, NGOs and government departments completely overlooking that and calling it Harmony Day, while Indigenous children are murdered on their way home from school, or incarcerated in maximum security adult prisons, some for petty crimes that no white Australian has been arrested for since the era of the convicts.
The intentional avoidance and silencing of the use of race as a social descriptor, and the sidelining of even the term “racial discrimination”, does not address the existence or implications of race and racism in Australian society. Far from it, the insistence on using “CALD” and avoiding “race” actually renders academic inquiry and the resulting policy discourse as vague, obtuse and almost intentionally ineffective.
The Terms of Reference also state that the review will consider the institutional arrangements and policy settings at the Commonwealth level that will ensure they advance a multicultural Australia and support our cohesive and inclusive multicultural society, and yet there is not a single use of the terms race or racism, racial discrimination or even racial equity in the Terms of Reference.
Conclusion
Fostering a diverse, cohesive, inclusive and equitable society cannot be achieved through a policy framework that avoids the language of racial discrimination, and fails to address systemic racism, cultural superiority and white normativity. The White Australia Policy referred to this continent as a “white man’s land” and persisted in that agenda for 70 years. In order to address the disparity and inequity caused by those 70 years of this policy, we ask the department to take a proactive approach towards achieving these lofty and commendable goals of equity and inclusion, so that we may achieve true harmony and cohesion.
Our drive to support this work and be a part of empowering effective social change comes from our deep belief in the essential and irrefutable unity of the human race, and our desire to witness a society that is completely inoculated against the destructive winds of disunity.
We often hear of the benefits of diversity and the economic boosts to the nation that migrants bring, but the authors believe that we are yet to scratch the surface of our true capacity and potentialities as a nation and as a planet, and we can only hope to achieve the dizzying heights of our true potential once we can overcome the subtle and overt forms of discrimination and marginalisation that exist in society along the lines of gender, ability, religion and race.
Cohesion is not simply a demeanor to adopt like “friendliness”, it requires a social structure and policy framework that moves beyond rhetoric and politicking and actually addresses the socially engrained forms of everyday marginalisation, both subtle and overt, that withhold First Nations People and People of Colour, from full and true participation in the Arts, Education, Media, Public Office, Not-For-Profit and Corporate spaces of this nation to the same extent that European Australians enjoy.
We extend our thanks for the department’s intention to conduct this important work, and offer these reflections, and our future advice and support, with love and gratitude.
Kind regards,
Erfan Daliri
Dr Farvardin Daliri OAM
