Laboratorios de innovación – casos de referencia nacional

The new multiculturalism that emerged within the conservative Liberal

government of the late 1970’s, with its emphasis on difference rather than disadvantage and multiple social divisions rather than on class divisions, tackled the problem of social cohesion through categorizing ethnic groups as homogenous entities (Cope, Castles & Kalantzis, 1991: 14). This allowed symbolic representation of group interests under the wider umbrella of the state and shifted some responsibility for group welfare onto leaders within ethnic communities themselves (Cope, Castles & Kalantzis, 1991: 14). This policy approach stressed the right to maintain cultural identity and resulted in a relocation of

14 _{See Birowski (2000) for a detailed discussion of the different stages and developments of Australian}

services for migrants from the domain of social welfare to more “ethnic specific” services (Cope, Castles & Kalantzis, 1991: 14).

Multiculturalism embraced two important dimensions: diversity (recognition of the value of many cultures and backgrounds of Australians) and equality (the fostering of equal opportunities) (Council of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, 1986: 2- 3). Multiculturalism as a policy draws on the principles identified and outlined by the Galbally report, including support for the preservation of individual cultures, respect for cultural difference, equality and equity of access to services and programs and the promotion of self-reliance (Council of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, 1986: 2-3).

Despite the changes from policies of assimilation to ideals of multiculturalism in Australia, immigration policy remained a prominent and contested area. The end of the Vietnam War and the fall of Saigon in 1975 saw a number of Vietnamese refugees arrive by boat in Australia, prompting the development of a specific refugee policy by the Australian government of the time (Viviani, 1996: 7-8). The arrival of Vietnamese refugees after 1975 was a politically charged issue principally due to entrenched attitudes towards race, the politically divisive events in Vietnam and uncertainty surrounding the expected number of Vietnamese arrivals (Viviani, 1980: 1) However, by 1979, public attention had turned from issues surrounding the entry of Vietnamese refugees to Australia to concerns about the impact of Vietnamese settlement (Viviani, 1980: 36).

Viviani (1980: 41-42) argues that the generally welcoming attitude in Australia towards the entry of refuges in the 1970’s had shifted to a more negative opinion supported by ungrounded perceptions concerning Vietnamese settlement. Particularly relevant was the emergence in the 1980’s and 1990’s of a discourse that was concerned with the levels of Asian immigration (Jayasuriya & Pookong, 1999: 74). The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s report (HREOC, 1991) recognized that the rise of Asian immigration at the end of the 1970’s, increases to unemployment after the recession (1982-1983) and the publicity of the “Blainey debate”, prompted an

“immigration debate” that questioned Asian immigration levels of (HREOC, 1991: 172- 173).

The Blainey debate refers to the contentious discussion raised by historian Geoffrey Blainey. This debate emerged during a time in Australia where there was a restructure of the manufacturing industry leading to rising unemployment, especially among the newly arrived Vietnamese refugees who had settled in suburbs like

Cabramatta, with its cheaper housing prices, and lower paid employment opportunities (Caruthers, 2008: 104). In a speech to Rotarians in Warrnambool, Victoria in 1984, and in his publication All for Australia later that same year, Blainey laid out his objections to the developments to Australian immigration policy in two areas: the entry of refugees and migrants to Australia; and the bi-partisan policy of multiculturalism that grounds the framework of “ethnic affairs” policy for migrants (Collins, 1985: 47-48).

Jock Collins makes the point that the debate concerning Blainey’s arguments was “…an animal of the media, carried into the lounge rooms of the nation.” (Collins, 1985: 47). This had two important consequences for the status of Blainey’s critique: it did not initially provide a full and organized account of his arguments; and the debate ensured that Blainey gained a national platform for his views (Collins, 1985: 47). With the publication of All for Australia, it was possible to undertake a more detailed critique of Blainey’s position, a task taken up by Collins, who found it a “…dangerous polemic which places Blainey at the forefront of the New Conservatism in Australia…” (Collins, 1985: 55).

Although Blainey’s views were resisted by some of his academic colleagues and both sides of politics, the concerns he raised about Indo-Chinese concentration in urban areas and the associations he made between concentration and the creation of “ghettoes”, gave rise to a harmful public debate that stigmatized the Indo-Chinese community (Viviani, 1996: 40-41). According to Viviani, the fear associated with “the ghetto” in the context of Indo-Chinese settlement was related to more than previous episodes of

historical racism, as it connected with concerns about social disadvantage and lack of social cohesion (Viviani, 1996: 40). These concerns rose to public prominence in 1984, with negative connections being made between Indo-Chinese settlement and ethnic concentration by Blainey and again in 1988, when Opposition leader John Howard canvassed the possibility of slowing down Asian immigration if elected (Viviani, 1996: 40-41).

Despite these issues and emerging debates, continued government backing for the notion of multiculturalism continued from 1973 through to 1996, with prime ministers, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating following Fraser and Whitlam in re-stating support for multicultural policy and institutions (Jupp, 1998: 139). There were some changes that emerged alongside the multicultural agenda of the Galbally era, with some reforms to areas of general disadvantage that also included non-English speaking migrants (Cope, Castles & Kalantzis, 1991: 14).

In a more global context, the 1990’s witnessed a “growing skepticism” concerning multiculturalism in the Australian context (Jupp, 1998: 146). By the year 1994, an increasing tendency to link ethnic diversity to conflict in society existed in Australia, alongside an increasing Australian dependence upon Asian immigration (Collins, 1994: 28). The late 1990’s also witnessed a new conservative Liberal government under Prime Minister John Howard, who remained critical of

multiculturalism (Jupp, 1998: 147). While ethnic groups within Australia received cultural rights (in the sense of a recognized right to the preservation of one’s culture of origin) as the reward for their struggles against cultural hegemony or dominance, their political, social and economic rights had yet to be realized (Viviani, 1996: 142).

The 1990’s was also the era in Australian politics where Pauline Hanson made her speech that called for the abolition of multiculturalism (Hanson, 1996). Hanson’s 1996 maiden parliamentary speech made reference to increases in Asian immigration, arguing that Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians” who fail to “assimilate” and

who “form ghettoes” (Hanson, 1996: 1). Hanson’s views in this speech went against non- discriminatory immigration policy on the basis of protecting social cohesion; an

argument that conflated two distinct dimensions of Asian immigration; issues of settlement and the principles of recruitment (Jayasuriya & Pookong, 1999: 3 & 16).