AUSTRALIAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA CONFERENCE
Washington, 21-22 February 1997
Dr James Jupp, Director,
Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies,
Australian National University
This paper should not be cited or quoted without the permission of the author.
The election of the Liberal-National Coalition government in March, 1996 promised a radical restructuring of many of the practices and institutions created under thirteen years of Labor rule. The ship of state was to be turned around and sail away in a new direction. Immigration and multicultural policy had been consistently criticised by a variety of groups and individuals for over ten years, some of them close to the Liberal and National Parties. The new prime minister, John Howard, had been involved in several controversies in these areas, notably in 1988. He was known to favour the idea of 'one nation' and fought the election on the rather ambiguous slogan 'for all of us'. His constant use of the term 'mainstream Australia' also sent out a mixed message, especially to those who had been celebrating cultural variety as recently as the lavish Global Cultural Diversity conference held in Sydney in April 1995. Howard and Fischer were on the record as monarchists, though this was not a position unanimously held within the Coalition. Ambivalence over the relationship with Asia was widespread among conservatives. Business and commerce were completely hypnotised by Asian economic power, while 'old Australians' were less than excited about Asian immigration, tourism and property ownership. The Coalition had fought and lost the 1993 election on Fightback!, which was unsympathetic to multiculturalism or mass immigration(Liberal and National Parties 1991). While that programme was declared 'dead' with the resignation of Liberal leader John Hewson, it soon became clear that many of its proposals would be implemented by the new government.
By 1996 Australian governments had been committed to non-discriminatory immigration and to multiculturalism for over twenty years. Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating had not just given lip service to these principles but had frequently and enthusiastically endorsed them. The same was true of State and Territory governments, though more recently in Queensland and Tasmania than in New South Wales, South Australia or Victoria. By 'non-discriminatory' was meant a reference to race, nationality or creed, but not to qualifications, entitlements or health. In fact Australia developed a tight system of visa control from which only New Zealanders were exempted and which was extended to British citizens from 1983. A points system for skilled and independent entrants, based on the Canadian model, has operated since 1979. A further emphasis on skill was recommended by the major enquiry chaired by Stephen FitzGerald in 1988, although many of his recommendations were not accepted by the Hawke government(FitzGerald 1988). By 1996 Australia had a long established system based on three categories: family reunion, skilled and independent, and humanitarian. These were subject to different criteria and contained subcategories. In July-March 1995-6 in a total intake of 78 334, family reunion accounted for 46.1% of settler arrivals, skill and independent for 21.7% and humanitarian for 14.3%. The residue of 17.9% were almost all from New Zealand. Birthplaces of the settlers for that period were: UK,Europe and former USSR 26.5%; Middle East and North Africa 8.1%; Asia 40.5%. The residue, apart from New Zealanders, came mainly from South Africa.
Apart from regular fiddling with categories and qualifications, the general outline of immigration policy was well established (Wooden at al. 1994). Numbers responded to economic conditions and had been consistently falling from a peak of 145 000 in 1989, close to that recommended by FitzGerald. Sources reflected demand and political and economic conditions in sending countries, with arrivals from the European Union being at a low ebb for years. Within Asia numbers had moved from Southeast to Northeast, but in both cases included a high proportion of ethnic Chinese. Trends since 1975 have shifted the ethnic balance in Australia away from Europeans and towards Asians and this has made the immigration and multicultural policies of government rather more controversial than in the past. Those using a language other than English at home totalled about 17% of the population in 1991. Those born in Asia (excluding the Middle East) totalled 5% of whom the largest number were Chinese and Vietnamese. The total overseas-born population by 1996 was 23%. Figures for'race' have not been kept since 1966 except for Aborigines, but Australia remained a predominantly 'white' country with three-quarters of its people of British or Irish origin. However it did have a noticeable Asian presence in some cities, caused not only by immigration but also by tourism and the recruitment of Asian students. Asian immigration has had the greatest impact on Sydney, tourism on Queensland and students on Sydney and Melbourne.
The policies collectively termed multiculturalism had been subject to considerable criticism and misunderstanding since they were initially announced by the Whitlam government in 1973 and developed by the Fraser government around the Galbally report of 1978 (Gardiner-Garden 1993). Until the creation of an Office of Multicultural Affairs in 1987 policy was in the hands of the Department of Immigration, to whom it returned in 1996 with the abolition of the Office by the Howard government. As I have argued elsewhere, Australian multiculturalism grew out of immigrant settlement, was not concerned with Aborigines, did not follow American affirmative action principles, did not have the cultural emphasis of Canadian policy and was primarily concerned with social justice and social harmony rather than with the preservation of ethnic differences (Jupp 1996).
Most critics have not bothered to familiarise themselves with concrete policies but have simply warned of ghettoes, warring tribes, loss of identity and other historic obsessions which can usually be traced back to nineteenth century Australia. The most virulent critics of multiculturalism included conservative print and radio journalists, some Returned and Services League officials, many National and Liberal activists and a few academics. Despite Fraser's strong advocacy of multiculturalism, most of these were influential upon the Coalition parties. Equally, most influences from the 'ethnic' constituency became aligned with the ALP during the thirteen years of Labor rule. The great majority of electorates with non-British immigrant concentrations were safe Labor seats. Over a period of years Labor became identified with multiculturalism and the Coalition with its critics. One of the most coherent attacks came from John Howard in his speech to the Western Australia Liberals at Esperance in 1988.
The 'debate' about multiculturalism has been particularly confused because so few of the participants have any grasp of the actual policies being pursued under that rubric. Many are simply recycling arguments from the United States.Others are reviving fears which formed the basis of White Australia sentiment over a century ago. Few relate their critique to actual events or developments unless it is to concentrate on the undoubted links between some Asians and some drug operations. There is little opposition to the most expensive multicultural provision, the television and radio services of SBS. There has been gross exaggeration of the cost of migrant settlement services administered by ethnic specific agencies. There is a total misunderstanding of the relationship between immigration and multiculturalism, with critics talking about a deliberate reshaping of Australian ethnicity. On the extreme, people like Graeme Campbell MP talk about 'Asianisation' as a 'grand plan' (Campbell and Uhlmann 1995). Most warn about civil disorder, using examples from Yugoslavia, Fiji or Sri Lanka, societies with nothing in common with Australia. In essence multiculturalism as public policy has had limited and pragmatic objectives: ensuring the easy transition of immigrants into Australian society; limiting and reducing prejudice; developing access and equity in the provision of public services; encouraging non-English-speaking Australians to maintain their languages and cultures; and advocating tolerance for new religions, cultural groups and languages within the context of acceptance of Australian laws and traditions. All of this is designed to alleviate social and personal stress and to avoid the creation of disadvantaged or alienated groups based on ethnic variety( OMA 1989; OMA 1992; NMAC 1995;Theophanous 1995).
Within the Coalition parties and among their supporters, there is a more generalised concern with the changes created in Australia by many influences, including immigration. Such concern was expressed in the widespread consultations undertaken by the Liberal Party in 1991 (Liberal Party 1991). The strong Anglophile and monarchist elements among Sydney Liberals echo the view regularly expressed in Quadrant in 1988 that multiculturalism denies the British inheritance. Elderly Australians, in organisations like the RSL and in retirement areas like Queensland, are also susceptible to appeals to the past and tend to be Coalition voters. In rural areas there is little experience of immigration and the National Party has often expressed its concerns in similar terms. However, it should not be assumed that support for or opposition to multiculturalism corresponds directly to partisan divisions. Many Liberals in Victoria and South Australia have been active supporters of multicultural approaches. Many ethnic activists have supported the Liberal Party. And in the 1996 election, for the first time, there were more 'ethnic' Liberal MPs returned than those from the Labor Party, of whom only one immigrant, Andrew Theophanous, remained.
Although the Howard government was not elected on Fightback! in March 1996, it began to implement parts of that programme. The Coalition parties had consistently called for a shift towards a more economically rational intake and, in this, they were able to build on trends already prefigured by the FitzGerald report and implemented under the Keating government. They also actively changed the structures and personnel which had developed under Labor. The Department of Immigration was removed from the Cabinet for the first time since 1983. The department had normally been outside Cabinet under previous Coalition governments and had been abolished altogether by Whitlam in 1974. But exclusion from Cabinet was one of many signals that the new government's priorities and attitudes were different. The departmental secretary, Chris Conybeare, was also removed along with the heads of five other departments . Howard moved swiftly to abolish the Office of Multicultural Affairs and to remove its vestigial functions to the department, which was renamed the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). These functions were allocated a minimal budget of less than $900 000. This completed a decline which had already begun under Labor and which had led to OMA's regional offices being amalgamated into Immigration and to its research functions being transferred to the Bureau of Immigration Research. The Bureau itself was abolished as part of the Budget process in mid-year.
For the first time for years, then, the new government had no independent research capacity, no multicultural monitoring agency, no representation of the 'immigrant interest' in Cabinet, and no clearcut commitment to anything other than accepting that Australians were 'culturally diverse' and that immigration would continue to be 'non-discriminatory'. The recorded views of its two most influential members, Howard and Costello, gave little comfort to those who favoured a multicultural approach, such as the relevant Minister, Philip Ruddock, and a number of State Liberal leaders, including Jeff Kennett. In interviews with Gerard Henderson while in Opposition, Howard objected that "multiculturalism is in effect saying that it is impossible to have an Australian ethos, that it is impossible to have a common culture" (Henderson 1990,p.164). Costello saw "multiculturalism as part of the cultural cringe in that we feel somehow embarrassed about asking migrants in this country to adopt Australian culture" (op.cit.p.116).
Policy development moved swiftly during the year in directions already advocated in Fightback! These included the restriction of family reunion nomination to Australian citizens, the extension of the waiting period for welfare payments from six months to two years, the extension of English-language capacity as a requirement for skilled entry, and full cost recovery for English tuition. The Senate in November blocked some of these proposals, prompting the Minister to threaten a cap on family reunion numbers. The Prime Minister claimed that the Senate was "preventing the Government of this country from altering the balance of our migration programme in favour of skilled migration"(Canberra Times 8/11/96). Refugees and humanitarian entrants were exempt from these changes and the relatively low levels of humanitarian intake under Labor were retained. However, the government was most anxious to reduce the costs and delays inherent in the refugee appeals system, which remains under threat of drastic amendment or restructuring. The government also reasserted Labor's policy of detaining asylum seekers at Port Hedland, which is inconsistent with the preferred policy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and has been condemned by Amnesty International. The Minister expressed doubts about the new humanitarian Special Assistance Category introduced by Labor, which favoured Yugoslavs escaping the civil war in Bosnia.
By the start of 1997 the government's immigration policy was in some disarray due to obstruction in the Senate. However, the general outlines and intended directions were fairly clear even if not always explicitly stated. The shift from family reunion to skill, which had been Liberal policy for some years, is also likely to mean a shift towards those fluent in English. Research has repeatedly shown a close relationship between poor English and poor employment prospects (Foster and Baker 1991). Most previous policy discussion had focussed on improving English education and language services. But already under Labor charges had been introduced for the previously free Adult Migrant English Programme. The Liberal intention is to extend this through full cost recovery payable prior to arrival. Such costs would not, of course, need to be borne by those whose English is judged adequate, nor would they be extended to humanitarian entrants whose English is almost invariably poor. Those most likely to be financially disadvantaged would be relatives of former humanitarian entrants. Asian immigrants would not necessarily be discriminated against as many come from societies such as Singapore,Malaysia, Philippines,India and Hong Kong where English is widely understood.
However,those fromVietnam,mainland China,Turkey,Cambodia,Laos, Russia and El Salvador were shown by recent research to have the lowest English proficiency of recent arrivals. A further disincentive for non-English-speakers will be the extension of occupations requiring English under the skill entry category from about one hundred to over one thousand. Those with poor English seeking points for entry will not receive them if they propose to enter such occupations. English proficiency was also allocated points under the concessional family reunion category(mainly siblings) which had previously been exempt.
The most controversial and potentially discouraging change was already proposed before the election and the government can therefore claim a mandate, as the Opposition recognised. This extends the waiting period for welfare payments from six months under Labor to two years. The most important element is unemployment benefit. As very high proportions of non-English-speaking new arrivals remain unemployed for one or two years this measure was designed to save considerable sums. It will also act as a major disincentive for family reunion nomination, as relatives will be expected to support their unemployed nominees. Once again, humanitarian entrants are excluded but their relatives are not and the same nationalities are likely to be disproportionately affected as for increased English tuition costs. Medicare benefits remain available from entry. The Senate did not, however, allow extension of the range of disallowed benefits, provoking an attack by Jocelyn Newman, minister for Social Security, on those "denying benefits to Aussie battlers". This divisive approach was endorsed by the media use of the misleading term 'migrant welfare' for entitlements which were available to all Australians. Whatever develops in the Senate in 1997 it is clearly the government's intention to discourage family reunion for those likely to become unemployed and, at the same time, to reduce the budgetary burden of such new arrivals. Again, this will not discriminate against Asians and even applies to New Zealanders.
Like its predecessor the new government remains committed to a humanitarian intake of at least ten per cent of the total. However, the tortured experience of asylum processing under Labor has prompted a more stringent approach. The Minister floated the idea of ending the appeals system altogether by abolishing the Immigration and Refugee Review Tribunals. This has yet to happen and would undoubtedly also be blocked in the Senate. Detention at Port Hedland remains as a disincentive although efforts have been made to clear the camp more quickly than under Labor, when inmates had remained for up to four years. A Refugee Settlement Council was created to focus more directly on relevant issues, an approach always resisted by Labor and the Department of Immigration in the past. Financial aid for on-shore asylum seekers has been withdrawn except for severe emergency cases, reversing provision introduced by Labor in 1992. There is unlikely to be any increase in the humanitarian intake and the chances of asylum seekers being given permanent residence are no better than before and could become worse. The reverberations of the admission of 20 000 Chinese student asylum seekers in 1989 still echo through the family reunion system and are largely responsible for that category increasing, which the Coalition deplored before the election and moved to reverse afterwards. Australia will continue to fulfill its minimum international obligations within its consistent policy of favouring those with existing Australian connections. This will not necessarily favour Asians, as recent trends have increased European intakes from Yugoslavia and Russia for the first time for decades.
The overall intention of policy is to reduce settlement costs, to discourage non-English-speakers, to tighten family reunion and to reduce the overall intake gradually. There is no overt ( or covert ) intention of discriminating against Asians but a clear intention to discriminate against those likely to become unemployed. Neither the Coalition, nor Labor before it, have faced the prospect of mass emigration from Hong Kong after the British departure. Should this happen, its impact on Australia will be closely related to the policies of the United States and Canada. Those Hong Kong residents who have already established residence or family connections will certainly come to Australia towards the end of the century. But there may not be the sudden expansion of Asian intake which followed the end of the Vietnam war in 1975 or the Tienanmen events of 1989.
As for multicultural policy, the best that can be said is that very little has happened to dispel the belief that the Howard government would prefer initiatives to be taken in the States and Territories rather than by the Commonwealth. The transfer of the multicultural function back to the Department of Immigration indicates the narrow definition which the government prefers over Zubrzycki's original formulation that "multiculturalism is for all Australians". The government's position on Aboriginal affairs, its hesitations during the 1996 'debate' on Asian immigration, and its abolition of the agencies which monitored and developed policy in this area, suggest a period of 'benign neglect'. The government committed itself to a $5 million campaign against racism through the schools, but that is neither new nor likely to be very productive. At the same time it has nominated four publicly identified critics of multiculturalism or mass immigration ( Blainey, Chipman, Flannery and Stephen Joske ) to significant advisory positions. The States and Territories remain committed to access and equity and other multicultural programmes but it is too early to say what the national government's intentions are.
For years opponents of multiculturalism and the immigration programme had been calling for a 'national debate' or even a referendum. That these and related issues had regularly been aired in the media at roughly six monthly intervals does not seem to have been noticed. Part of the paranoia which grew during the 1990s centred around the proposition that governments would not listen to the people and that elites were preventing debate. The most elaborate version of this had already been developed by Dr Katharine Betts in her study Immigration and Ideology (Betts 1988). Betts emerged as a close ally of Dr Bob Birrell, who has consistently opposed mass immigration for twenty years. Together they launched the quarterly journal People and Place in 1993, which effectively carried on the very debate which was supposed to be 'suppressed' by the 'politically correct'. With the election of the Coalition government in March, 1996, and the overt attack on 'political correctness' by John Howard, many got the message that the signals had changed. The tide flowed rapidly against immigration and multiculturalism. At the extreme, Pauline Hanson and those who supported her reopened once more the issue of Asian immigration which has haunted Australia for one hundred and fifty years. Hanson's landslide victory in Oxley was,however, largely based on her opposition to welfare support for Aborigines.
Opponents of immigration and multiculturalism are not necessarily the same people nor are such opponents ideologically or organisationally linked. They range from those whose main concern is the protection of the environment to those who subscribe (however shamefacedly) to White Australia. A small but virulent neo-Nazi movement, based mainly now in Adelaide, is outside the debate to a large extent and concerned with such extraneous issues as the admission of David Irving to Australia, which the Liberals, like Labor before them, have prevented. Moving from the extreme Right slightly towards the democratic mainstream, there are clear links between the League of Rights and former Labor MP Graeme Campbell, who at one time also showed sympathy with the La Rouche movement, which campaigns for citizen initiated referenda. Campbell was a guest speaker at the League's fiftieth aniversary dinner in 1996 and spoke at other League functions before that. The League is noted for its old-fashioned British imperialism and support for White Australia and its anti-semitism. Campbell, in turn, is closely linked with Australians Against Further Immigration and especially with its research officer, Denis McCormack (McCormack 1996). On 28 October 1996 Campbell tabled a report by McCormack in the Representatives, arguing that "Australia needs Denis McCormack in federal parliament".Campbell was also linked with Pauline Hanson by providing his former researcher John Pasquarelli to her, though that connection was soon broken.
Pasquarelli had previously worked for Senator John Stone, as had Hanson's current electoral secretary, Barbara Hazleton. Campbell's attempt to form the Australia First Party as a movement around his opposition to immigration got off to a very shaky start. The connection with the League of Rights has undoubtedly damaged both his cause and that of AAFI, as well as frightening off Pauline Hanson. Any possibility of uniting these groups with the gun lobby were aborted by the strong opposition of Ted Drane to the League. After the breach with Campbell, Hanson was left with the support of Bruce Whiteside, a Gold Coast retiree, who had attempted to form the Heart of a Nation movement in 1988 in opposition to Japanese property ownership. This had collapsed rather quickly when it emerged that Whiteside was a New Zealander who had not become an Australian citizen. However, the responsibility for organising the Pauline Hanson support groups still rests with him. Hanson was also reported as negotiating with expelled Liberal activist Senator Crichton-Browne from Western Australia. These links are detailed not to suggest a conspiracy but rather to indicate that networks exist, as they also do among the ecological and conservationist opponents of immigration.
As yet the anti-immigrationists have not developed into a viable movement tested at the polls, except for Australians Against Further Immigration. Their candidates secured 73 023 (0.67%) of the Representatives total in 1996 and 137 604 (1.26%) of the Senate vote. A local breakaway, Reclaim Australian Reduce Immigration, gained 44 545 (1.21%) of the Senate vote in New South Wales. AAFI had scored considerable support in by-elections where the major parties did not contest, but this largely evaporated at the general election. Their strongest support was in Sydney rather than in Melbourne where they originate. In March 1996 AAFI gained more than 4% of the vote in Werriwa(5.6%), Banks(5.2%), Greenway(4.6%) and Fowler(4.2%) while RARI got 4.0% in Cook. These are all adjacent seats in southwestern Sydney but apart from Fowler(containing Cabramatta) they do not have exceptionally large Asian populations. The only other electorate in the whole of Australia recording over 4% for AAFI was in the National Party stronghold of Lyne(NSW), for no obvious reason as less than 3% of its population are non-British immigrants. Organised anti-immigration candidates have a small base in outer Sydney. But this pales into insignificance when compared with the 48.6% won by Hanson in Oxley or the 35.1% support for Campbell in Kalgoorlie, both running as independents (Newman and Kopras 1996).
Australians Against Further Immigration had some tenuous links with those opponents of immigration grouped loosely around Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population. This had its strongest connection with the Australian Democrats, and former Democrat leader ex-Senator John Coulter is the national president of AESP. Like others, they were not impressed by the association of Campbell and some AAFI activists with the League of Rights, nor did they approve of running specifically anti-immigration candidates. They go out of their way to deny any racist sympathies and are advocates in many cases of increased refugee intakes. Their links are primarily with the Democrats and the Greens, though both of these have been disturbed in the past by the extreme advocacy of zero population growth with which Coulter began his political career over twenty years ago. Under his leadership Democrat support dropped to a record low level in the 1993 election, though this was not necessarily related to his views on immigration. Coulter's position, very recently expressed, is that " there is no combination of technological, economic,social,political and institutional change known that would allow Australia to ecologically sustain even the present population of 18.4 million"(letter to The Australian 15/1/97).
Coulter's pessimism is shared by scientists such as Tim Flannery, who wants population eventually reduced to six million, though how this can be achieved is not clear (Flannery 1994). The main influence of AESP has been among earth, plant and animal scientists, especially within the CSIRO. Along with Birrell and a handful of demographers and writers, they have urged a population policy on governments which would protect future generations by stabilising the population (Clarke et al. 1990; Smith 1991). Immigration is the only element in such a policy which can be effectively manipulated by the Australian government. This places them firmly in the camp which wants only a replacement level of immigration, currently about 30 000 per year as against the 1997 quota of 74 000. This is the official policy of the Australian Democrats but has been resisted by the other parties. The greatest success in the campaign for a population policy was the setting up by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Longterm Strategies in February 1994 of an enquiry into carrying capacity chaired by Barry Jones. As he noted "over 90 per cent advocated population stability or lower population growth" but qualified this by remarking that most only presented opinions. A survey of the submissions shows that a high proportion came from within the 'green-ecological network'. Of those personally interviewed by the committee eight out of twenty-one were activists in AESP, AAFI or had publicly expressed sympathies with their position. The committee secretariat included Dr Doug Cocks, who was seconded from the CSIRO. The rather lukewarm recommendations of the committee prompted him to write a substantial book to argue that "population stabilisation is an idea whose time has come for Australia"(Cocks 1996,p.xi). The green-ecological network was also influential upon the Australian Academy of Science which held a symposium on population at its 1994 annual meeting and made a submission to the Jones enquiry(Australian Academy of Science 1994).
There are at least two organised elements in the current immigration 'debate' and within them there are differences of emphasis and organisational loyalty. Those who oppose multiculturalism and Asian migration group around Campbell, Hanson and AAFI. Those who subscribe to the 'population explosion' fears earlier expressed by the Ehrlichs, group around the Democrats, the greens and some scientists and academics. The first group uses electoral appeals and populist arguments; the latter 'permeates' established institutions in true Fabian style. Of the two the 'ecologists' have had more influence, though politicians obviously watch the anti-immigration vote with great interest. The readership vote for Australian of the Year in the January 1997 Once in opposition, the ALP immigration spokesman, Duncan Kerr, came out in favour of a population policy. However, he related that to the need for consistent immigration planning, recommended by the FitzGerald review eight years before, rather than to the limitation of population growth. The new government, like the old, remained on the roller coaster which moved gross intake numbers between 68 000 and 145 000 under its predecessor. On balance the opponents of multiculturalism had more success in 1996 than the proponents of stabilised population, though both had more influence than under Labor. And the public 'debate' took place in the media with little reference to either of these organised factions. As the satirical ABC programme Frontline put it recently, the media approach on such issues is "Divide the Nation, Multiply the Ratings".
By 1984 the complex and expensive mechanisms were in place for celebrating the bicentenary of British colonisation in 1788. Four years before the centenary of federation there is much less sign of planning or organisation. Preparations made by the previous government seem to have been put aside and the issue of the republic still haunts discussion. The new government created a new Centenary of Federation Council, sending yet another message to 'multiculturalists' by appointing Professor Geoffrey Blainey to it. Within the immigration area, work on official and pictorial histories and a second edition of the Bicentennial encyclopedia The Australian People , had their funding cancelled consequent upon the abolition of the Bureau of Immigration Research and the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Although the new Council included an Aborigine (Evonne Goolagong-Cawley) and a Vietnamese (Professor Trang Thomas), there was no indication of what 'multicultural' programme (if any) would be developed. While there was also considerable confusion and hesitancy in 1988 and a limited outcome, the current situation is much less clearcut than it was in the last year of the Labor government. Proposals to focus on the meaning of 'citizenship' appear to be on hold, like the republic.
The new government has yet to commit itself in the area of multicultural policy by appointing a successor advisory committee to the Labor-appointed council chaired by the late Mick Young. Preliminary information suggests that such a council will ultimately be appointed and will be concerned, among other matters, with 'multicultural aspects of the Sydney Olympics'. Apart from incorporating the word 'multicultural' in the title of the Immigration Department ( as Fraser previously incorporated 'ethnic affairs') official statements are reluctant to use the expression at all. A cursory examination of Howard's speeches suggests that he has never used the word since being elected, although he has frequently used the expression 'mainstream Australians'. There is a marked trend to leave State governments to develop multiculturalism and this is indicated by the use of the term in the official titles of agencies in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the ACT ('ethnic' still being preferred in New South Wales and Queensland). As the States and Territories deal with education, culture, health, language services, tourism and other relevant areas, this may yet prove to be a healthy development (VEAC 1995;NSW Govt. 1996). It still remains questionable whether the very limited resources allocated to the Department of Immigration can fill the gaps left by abolishing the former research and monitoring functions. Devolution to the States is Coalition policy in many areas and that seems likely to be the case with multiculturalism and access and equity. Perhaps fortunately, the various State Liberal Parties seem much more comfortable with this policy area than is the national leadership.
The foreseeable future of immigration policy depends on several unpredictable factors. First is the state of the economy and especially the level of unemployment; second the degree of public hostility as already evident in the 'Hanson phenomenon'; third the extent of pressure to enter Australia; fourth the political stability of several countries with Australian links; fifth the policies of the United States, Canada and the European Union; and sixth the bureaucratic interplay between Commonwealth Departments, ministerial advisers and expert opinion. The role of the parties and pressure groups is perhaps much less important than formal political science analysis might suggest (Jupp and Kabala 1993). Few economic interests other than the building industry now lobby actively for increased migration, nor do most States other than South Australia and the Northern Territory. The political parties have rarely developed detailed immigration policy, preferring broad principles which allow flexibility. The ethnic and refugee lobbies are beset by considerable insecurity about their funding and their limited influence in a hostile environment. Pressures against immigration from the ecologist-green network may have limited impact on the Coalition, whose major supporting interests are less than sympathetic to the overall 'green'case and who cut the funding of the Australian Conservation Foundation by 42% early in 1997. What is fairly certain is that it will become more difficult to enter Australia for those who do not speak English, do not have skilled qualifications and are unlikely to be immediately employed. This may reduce numbers but will not reduce the Asian component. Whatever happens, Australia will be much more multicultural and much more integrated into Asia than it was in 1901. The national government may talk a great deal less about these unavoidable facts than did its predecessor. The ship of state will tack with the winds of popular opinion, but cannot move completely off course.
Looking towards 2000
References intentionally withheld from electronic publishing. For footnotes and further information, contact the author.
Return to conference index.