Multicultural Framework Falters Towards Fairness

This article was originally published in The Mandarin on 19 August 2024, and is republished here with permission.

Defining ‘Multicultural’

The 2024 Multicultural Framework Review, ‘Towards Fairness – a multicultural Australia for all’, released on 24 July, has been given a warm initial reception by many organisations, including AMES, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, EECV, FECCA, Independent Multicultural Media Australia (IMMA), Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia, Professionals Australia, the Refugee Council of Australia and SSI. Gradually, as people review the 202-page report, questions may arise.

Many of the submissions to the Review, including the submission from my organisation Cultural Infusion, pointed to the need for a clear, inclusive definition of ‘multicultural’ and a need to acknowledge strengths of and unresolved issues with diverse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In both these areas the Multicultural Framework Review (MFR) seems to have fallen short.

Despite referencing the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia (Agenda) of 1989 and affirming its all-inclusive definition of multiculturalism, the MFR applies the term ‘multicultural’ unevenly, often using it in ways that infer there are discreet groups and people in Australia that can be set apart from ‘non-multicultural Australians’, as in ‘multicultural stakeholders’ (MFR p12). This colloquial use of the term ‘multicultural’ is highly misleading. As the 1989 Agenda stated:

…multicultural is simply a term which describes the cultural and ethnic diversity of contemporary Australia. We are, and will remain, a multicultural society.

[The] dimensions 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.

Managing Diversity

Binoy Kampmark notes the omission of First Nations voices on the panel. Whether the Review will help advance social cohesion in Australia, Kampmark suggests, ‘remains the monumentally challenging question’.

To frame social cohesion as a monumentally challenging question is no exaggeration. I’ve spent most of the past three decades grappling with it and still often feel I’ve only just begun. It is also the right question. The main purpose of a multiculturalism framework must be to provide a structure to promote social cohesion. Andrew Giles, the minister initiating the review, spelled this out in his 2 June 2023 launch speech, saying ‘Well-managed diversity leads to social cohesion.’ Unfortunately, the MFR does not seem to provide a sturdy enough structure for managing diversity.

Towards Fairness?

The title, ‘Towards Fairness’, redirects the purpose of the framework from social cohesion to ‘fairness’. Justice plays a vital role in improving social cohesion, but multiculturalism is bigger and messier than human concepts of justice can accommodate and the MFR does not suggest a credible path towards justice, such as a truth and reconciliation process for the various people who have had a rough deal in Australia (some more than others).

The timing of the MFR process overlapped with the referendum process to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament (the Voice), which was first announced on 23 March 2023 (before the launch of the MFR), and voted down on 14 October 2023 (before the release of the MFR).

The outcome of the Voice referendum could have informed the MFR. The referendum result returned a ‘yes’ vote from the great majority of remote Aboriginal communities. This high vote, showed a substantial willingness to work with government to find the best ways for working with the unique assets and challenges of Indigenous people in Australia.

The negative result of the referendum has created a policy vacuum that the MFR does not seem to have filled, which begs the question why. The terms of reference reproduced in the MFR Appendix are clear on the need for this focus: ‘The Review will acknowledge the diversity of Australia’s First Nations cultures, languages, lore and connection to lands and waters. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and groups will be invited to contribute to the consultation process to reflect on their experience of living in a multicultural Australia.’ (MFR p139)

It is unclear how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and groups were invited to contribute but their voices are mostly evident through their absence. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner June Oscar was given the MFR’s ‘First Word’ (p9), which she used to advocate elegantly for a multicultural framework modelled on the Indigenous kinship system, a suggestion that was not overtly taken up in the MFR.

The list of organisations included in Appendix E: Consultation (MFR p173 ff) seems to only include two Indigenous-led organisations, Southern Aboriginal Corporation, which serves the Noongar community, and Lhere Artepe, which represents the Native Title Holders of Alice Springs. Though according to the Government’s introduction to the Review, ‘[The Review Panel] heard from a host of diverse community and First Nations organisations’, this is not evident in the Review itself. I hope I’m wrong in my count because if this was the sum of Indigenous-led organisations consulted with, it is obviously inadequate.

The MFR identified the important area of education. Recommendations 19, 20 and 21 all contain good recommendations for education to improve understanding of First Peoples history, to promote and advance cultural literacies and to increase investment for language programs. I strongly support the statement, ‘Celebrating diverse languages and traditions, promoting intercultural and interfaith education, and incorporating cultural awareness into the curriculum from a young age are all vital steps towards building a truly inclusive and cohesive society.’ (MFR p104)

Because these are indeed ‘vital steps’, these recommendations should have formed part of the high-priority list ahead of Priority 3, which recommends developing ‘a national plan to celebrate Australia’s cultural diversity’.

The Question of Data

My final major concern is to the question of data. The MFR offered a ‘snapshot’ of people in Australia as fact, which relies on inadequate Census data (from 2021), including, for example, the ‘information’ that 3.2% of people in Australia identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The Australian Bureau of Statistics itself published 2021 ‘Census-based’ estimates that brought that figure up to 3.8%.

How do you ‘position Australia to realise its full potential as a nation made up of many cultures, faiths and lived experiences’, as the Government claims, without a clear inventory of what those cultures, faiths and lived experiences are?

Over and again among the 796 submissions to the Review Panel, people made this point in their own way, e.g. in this submission from the African Women Community Support Group (AWCSG) Inc: ‘Africa is a continent of 54 countries, each with its own multiplicity of ethnic groups and languages, so any group seeking to represent “Africa/Africans” is bound to be limited in its reach.’

Unfortunately, few people have a concept of democratised data and do not realise it is possible to take a full inventory.

Most people in leadership positions today, despite a volume of calls from people who feel ‘invisibilised’ in the data, act on the belief that a database representing human diversity with just a few hundred categories will produce ‘adequate data’ on human diversity. It will not.

The Opportunity

While the recommendations in the MFR are valuable, the Framework needs a clearer focus and stronger foundations to effectively address the complexities of contemporary Australia. The stakes could not be much higher.

The MFR is a huge opportunity. As one of the world’s most culturally diverse nations, Australia has more to gain or lose from its diversity than most. At worst, we are fearful, insular, judgmental of each other and torn by internal conflict. At best, we are a complex multicultural society where innovation thrives and mutual curiosity and respect is the norm.

Originally published in The Mandarin. Read the original article here.