The eight largest origin birthplaces of persons resident in the
Sydney region in 1996 were the United Kingdom and Ireland (5.7% of the city’s
population or 210,000 persons), New Zealand (1.8% or 67,000), China (1.7% or 62,500),
Vietnam (1.6% or 59,500), Italy (1.5% or 53,500), Lebanon (1.4% or 51,000), Philippines
(1.1% or 42,500) and Greece (1.0% or 37,500).
Migration from Italy and Greece has been a significant contributor to
the population growth of Sydney since the end of World War II. Recent trends indicate a
decline (Thompson, 1976; Bottomley, 1986) as diminished chain migration, mortality and
return migration have had their impact. Both Greek and Italian migrants have concentrated
their communities in the Sydney region with under 20 per cent residing in the remainder of
NSW. Initial settlement for Greek migrants occurred within the inner LGAs surrounding the
Sydney CBD where low cost housing was available. In 1996, the early settlement of Greek
migrants in the Marrickville LGA (5.0% of total population) was still evident. The
remaining four of the five highest representations were in the middle ring LGAs of
Canterbury (5.3%), Rockdale (4.2%), Botany (3.6%) and Kogarah (3.1%).
Although Italians also settled within the inner LGAs, they formed some
peripheral and non-metropolitan settlement. Migrants with agricultural expertise started
market gardens in western Sydney or took to the countryside, establishing farms and
vineyards. In 1996, Italian born persons’ residential locations showed a
significantly different pattern to those of the Greeks and were suggestive of earlier
dispersions. The five highest representations were all in middle-ring LGAs to the west of
the CBD with 9.6 per cent in Drummoyne followed by 7.4 per cent in Concord, 6.7 per cent
in Ashfield, 5.3 per cent in Burwood and 3.3 per cent in Fairfield. The largest community
was in the Fairfield LGA with almost 6000 persons in 1996, whilst a further 3,300 resided
in Canterbury (2.5% of total population). Significantly, the lowest representations were
in the outer and peripheral LGAs. Few Greek or Italian migrants reside in the outer
southern, western or northern regions of the city.
See Chart 2 (Sydney
Statistical Division - Overseas Born Persons 1996)
Lebanese migration to Sydney has had a long history dating back to the
1880s (Burnley 1982). Since the 1950s the flow of immigrants has been continuous, although
the cultural and religious mix has changed. Earlier migrants were predominantly Maronite,
Melekite and Orthodox Christian religious groups which settled within the inner suburbs of
Sydney. Since the 1976 onset of civil war in Lebanon, Muslims have dominated the increased
refugee migrant intake. In 1996 the largest proportions of Lebanese migrants were in the
outer middle-ring LGAs of Canterbury (6.9% of total population), Bankstown (5.9%), Auburn
(5.1%), Parramatta (4.3%) and Holroyd (4.1%). These five LGAs all border each other and
the levels of concentration can be linked to the location of Mosques and community
services within this region. Low levels of representation are apparent in outer and
periphery suburbs and are significantly low in middle ring northern areas.
The highest levels of Chinese born migrants in the 1996 Census were in
the inner and middle ring LGAs of Ashfield (8.5% of total population), Auburn (7.3%),
Canterbury (5.8%), Burwood (5.6%) and Strathfield (4.7%). The Canterbury LGA also contains
the largest community group (7,500 persons), whilst over 4,000 individuals reside in the
Fairfield and Parramatta LGAs. This inner-ring concentration has some historical links to
earlier community settlements and the presence of "China Town", located south
west of the CBD. Though outer and periphery representation is low, there are some
indications of northern middle-ring settlement occurring.
A more recent phenomena is the migration of persons born in the
Philippines, significantly women marrying Australian men. The pattern of settlement has
also been different from that of many other groups as these women tend to move into
already established homes (Hugo & Channell, 1986). Nearly a quarter of Sydney's
Philippine born population (10,900 persons) live in the Blacktown LGA (4.7% of that
regions total population) whilst other high representations can be found in Auburn (2.8%),
Botany (2.7%) and Ashfield (2.4%).
The immigration of people born in Vietnam is the largest part of the
Asian component of Australia's migration since the 1970s. Sydney is at its focus. Many
Vietnamese migrants were refugees from the Vietnam War and tended to form significant
kinship and community support networks centering around the Fairfield LGA. Consequently
Fairfield has the largest community (24,750 persons) and the highest representation of
Vietnamese people in Sydney (13.6% of its population). There are settlements in the nearby
LGAs of Auburn (7.4%), Marrickville (5.6%), Bankstown (5.5%) and Canterbury (4.0%). These
five LGAs comprise 78 per cent of the total Vietnamese born population in Sydney, which
also makes this group one of the most concentrated in the region.
One important, though numerically small group within Sydney, is that of
the Indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI). See Chart 4. Though only
representing 0.8 per cent (30,800 persons) of the total population of Sydney in 1996,
there are some significant local groups within the Metropolitan area. These provide
cultural and community support, and have become a focus for growth. Two groups are located
in the outer west and south-west ring of Sydney, with the large communities in Blacktown
(4,950 persons) and Penrith (1,350 persons) forming one group, whilst the Tharawal
community in Campbelltown (3,050 persons) and adjacent Liverpool (1,850 persons) form
another. Two smaller, but symbolically important communities live closer to the CBD. One
is in the Randwick LGA (1,350 persons) and the other in Redfern (1,720 persons). This
suburb is immediately south of the CBD and has long been a site of urban Aboriginal
activism.
See Chart 4 (Sydney
Statistical Division - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 1996)
Although these statistics are not a complete description of all
birthplace groups, they give an indication of Sydney's profound diversity. So too do the
figures on the languages people speak at home. In 1996, 26.2 per cent of Sydney's
residents reported speaking languages other than English (LOTE) at home. However, many
LGAs have levels of LOTE significantly higher than the Sydney average. These are
principally located in the inner and middle western suburbs, with the LGAs of Fairfield
(64.1%), Auburn (62.6%), Canterbury (62.2%) and Burwood (50.0%), all having at least half
their populations speaking a LOTE at home. It is also apparent that a continuous band of
LGAs from Botany in the east, to Liverpool in the outer west, all have levels over one
third of their population. See Chart 3.
The largest reported language groups were Chinese (4.3% of Sydney's
population), Arabic/Lebanese (2.7%), Greek or Italian (2.4% each), Vietnamese (1.4%) and
Spanish (1.2%). Though the Chinese language is not homogenous, as it includes the major
dialects of Mandarin and Cantonese, as well as many others, it is considered as one group
here. The pattern of residence is similar to that of the birthplace group, however the
levels are at times twice that previously indicated. The largest representation is again
in Auburn where 7.3 per cent were born in China but 15.6 per cent spoke Chinese in the
home. Similarly, Burwood had 11.6 per cent language maintenance, again nearly twice its
birthplace representation. However Ashfield, with the largest birthplace proportion
(8.5%), had only 12.5 per cent language maintenance.
The spatial pattern of Arabic/Lebanese adherence has mirrored that of
Lebanese settlements. Again LOTE levels are significantly higher than the birthplace
groups, indicating the significant cultural/religious maintenance of these people.
Canterbury had the highest representation (14.8%) which was over twice the birthplace
level. This pattern was similar for Auburn (12.8%), Bankstown (12.7%), Parramatta (9.2%)
and Holroyd (8.8%).
The five highest language maintenance areas where Greek was spoken are
the same as the birthplace areas and similarly, the level of Greek spoken in the home is
twice that of the birthplace level. Canterbury had the highest representation at 12.1 per
cent of its population followed by Rockdale (9.9%), Marrickville (9.1%), Botany (8.7%) and
Kogarah (7.7%). By contrast, the levels of Italian spoken in the home, the major European
group in Australia, have not been as resilient amongst subsequent generations. However,
the largest proportions are in the same geographic regions. Nearly 16 per cent of
Drummoyne's population speak Italian at home, which is nearly 60 per cent higher than the
birthplace group (9.6%). Similarly, Concord (13.0%), Ashfield (10.5%), Burwood (8.6%) and
Fairfield (5.8%) all indicate a lower level of language maintenance than the previously
discussed groups.
See Chart 3 (Sydney
Statistical Division - Persons who speak a language other than English at home 1996)
The Vietnamese community has similar language adherence patterns as its
birthplace distribution. This reflects the fact that it is a recently arrived immigrant
group. Fairfield had the highest level in 1996 (12.9%) which was slightly below the
birthplace level. This was followed by Bankstown and Marrickville (5.7% each) and then
Canterbury (3.7%). The 5th largest concentration was in Auburn (3.4%) which is more than
50% below the birthplace group in this LGA (7.4%).
The final group to be mentioned is those persons of Spanish speaking
backgrounds. The fact that they were not mentioned as a significant birthplace group is
due to their global diversity. In Sydney, 4,300 people were born in Spain, but the city
has also received migrants from Spanish speaking countries including South America and
more recently, the Philippines. This has produced some inner ring Spanish language
adherence in areas such as Botany (5.6% of the total population) as well as in the
middle-ring areas of Fairfield (5.4%), Liverpool (3.3%) and Ashfield (2.0%).
Table 2: The ten LGAs in NSW with the highest proportions of people speaking a language
other than English at home, 1996
LGAs |
Population speaking a
LOTE at home |
Major language groups in order
of size |
| |
Per cent |
First |
Second |
Third |
Forth |
Fifth |
Sixth |
| (1) Fairfield |
67.5 |
English |
Vietnamese |
Chinese |
Italian |
Spanish |
Arabic |
| (2) Auburn |
67.4 |
English |
Chinese |
Arabic |
Vietnamese |
Turkish |
Croatian |
| (3) Canterbury |
66.1 |
English |
Arabic |
Greek |
Chinese |
Korean |
Italian |
| (4) Burwood |
54.2 |
English |
Chinese |
Italian |
Greek |
Korean |
Hindi |
| (5) Botany |
52.4 |
English |
Greek |
Spanish |
Chinese |
Arabic |
Italian |
| (6) Ashfield |
52.0 |
English |
Chinese |
Italian |
Greek |
Korean |
Hindi |
| (7) Marrickville |
51.4 |
English |
Greek |
Cantonese |
Italian |
Vietnamese |
Portuguese |
| (8) Strathfield |
51.1 |
English |
Chinese |
Italian |
Greek |
Korean |
Hindi |
| (9) Rockdale |
49.9 |
English |
Greek |
Chinese |
Macedonian |
Arabic |
Italian |
| (10) Bankstown |
43.7 |
English |
Arabic |
Vietnamese |
Greek |
Chinese |
Italian |
Source: ABS Census, 1996. Customised tables.
Note: (1) Chinese comprises several languages, the largest group being Cantonese.
(2) All language groups shown had at least 1000 members in each LGA.
Responding to multiculturalism: National legislative and policy
measures
Even though Australia has always had a diverse population, its
political institutions have until recently tended to operate as if society was
homogeneously British. The Federal Government’s White Australia Policy aimed
to maintain cultural unity by discouraging the immigration of "coloured" people.
It was actively supported by both major political parties throughout the first three
quarters of the twentieth century. Moreover, this approach was followed by the attitude
that migrant people were expected to "assimilate" to the dominant Anglo cultural
norms. Both sets of policies failed to recognise the existence of indigenous Australians,
who were not even considered to be legal citizens of the nation until a referendum in
1967.
Although demographic diversity in Australia has increased rapidly since
the Second World War, its national political acknowledgment was apparent for the first
time only with the publication of A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future (Grassby,
1973). A minister in the first left-wing government to be elected in the post-war period,
Al Grassby was, to this day, one of the few non English speaking background (NESB)
migrants to reach high political office. His publication recognised Australia's ethnic
heterogeneity and suggested a model of cultural pluralism using the metaphor of a
"family of the nation" (Grassby, 1973, 4). Later, a Federal Government report
entitled Multiculturalism for All Australians: Our Developing Neighbourhood
(Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, 1982) extended Grassby's analogy.
This report advocated a model of cultural pluralism based upon principles of social
cohesion, cultural identity, equality of opportunity and access, and primary loyalty and
commitment to, and participation in, Australian society.
The Galbally Report was another national landmark statement
which demanded a more systematic and flexible framework of migrant services (Review of
Migrant Services and Programs, 1978). It established four core principles of federal
multicultural policy in Australia: equal opportunity and access to services, maintenance
of cultural heritage, modified mainstream services with ethno-specific programs where
necessary, and client consultation and community self-help. Many of the most significant
institutional developments in multicultural policy were taken from the Galbally Report
and it formed the foundations of a significant change in the official construction of
national identity.
Nevertheless, the shifts towards a multicultural national identity have
been vigorously contested. In 1984, there was a national debate about the desirability of
large-scale NESB immigration and the worthiness of multiculturalism as a model for
Australian society (Lewins, 1987). A government investigation, numerous reports, and the
implementation of new policies and programs resulted. This flurry of activity culminated
in the Jupp Report which confirmed multiculturalism as the most sound ideal for
Australian governance services (Committee of Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs,
1986). Debate erupted again during 1988, when the conservative Federal Opposition Leader
(now the Prime Minister of Australia) criticised levels of "Asian" immigration
and aspects of multicultural policy (The Sydney Morning Herald, 1/8/88 and
20/8/88). The Federal Government at the time reaffirmed its commitment to a multicultural
nation and issued a report entitled, National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia ...
Sharing Our Future (Office of Multicultural Affairs, 1989).
The National Agenda statement asserted that Australia should be defined
as a multicultural nation, and that national identity should be dynamic and flexible. It
defined multicultural policy as having three broad dimensions. These were:
- the right to retain cultural identity and to express it;
- the right to social justice and equal opportunity;
- the need to fully utilise the economic potential and abilities of all Australians.
The National Agenda statement also imposed limits to Australian
multiculturalism. It demanded from all Australians an over-riding commitment to the
nation, the acceptance of the basic structures and principles of Australian society (law,
respect for freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equality of the sexes) and
acceptance of the right of others to express their culture and views (Office of
Multicultural Affairs, 1989: vii).
The same Government issued a cultural policy statement in 1994, Creative
Nation (Department of Communications and the Arts, 1994), which went even further.
This statement posited Australia as a "hybrid" nation, composed of the mixing of
"imported and home-grown cultures". This afforded particular importance to
Australia's indigenous peoples, securing for them a specific contribution to national
identity (Department of Communications and the Arts, 1994: 1,6). Creative Nation
represents the most inclusive and complex government statement of Australian national
identity ever articulated.
The new conservative Federal Government elected in March of 1996 has
developed an ambivalence to the continued embrace of multiculturalism (McLeay, 1997).
Reference has been made to a "disillusioned mainstream" whose history and
institutions have been "demeaned" (Howard, 1995:11, 14; 1996: 2-3), as well as a
so-called "politics of division" (Howard, 1995: 5, 17, 43). This Government has
also instituted a review of multicultural policy, this time focusing on whether the term
"multiculturalism" remained appropriate, and determining what the core values of
Australian society should be (National Multicultural Advisory Council, 1997: 12-14). The
review’s terms of reference included the requirement that all subsequent
recommendations be consistent with Government directions and priorities as follows:
- a society united by common, values, goals and aspirations;
- the advancement of the interests of the wider community, and hence the national
interest, as distinct from the special interests of sectional groups;
- to reaffirm the strength of the unifying values that Australians share (NMAC, 1997: 14).
At face value these principles seem laudable. However, they can be seen
to be part of an assimilationist rhetoric which excludes those who are marked as
culturally different from a presumed "mainstream". There is also an implied
suggestion that multiculturalism has been about servicing the special interests of
sectional groups at the expense of a "wider" or majority community. No evidence
for such special treatment is provided, nor is the majority community ever defined, so it
is difficult to engage with this implication.
In this rhetoric, governance which is sensitive to
cultural difference risks being represented as culturally divisive. Ethno-specific service
provision has been portrayed as "special treatment", and vilification
legislation dismissed as a project of "political correctness". An independent
member of Parliament recently picked up these themes, re-igniting a "race
debate", in which the recognition and maintenance of cultural difference was
criticised as "separatism" (Hanson, 1996, 3860-3862). 4
The citizenship of indigenous and Asian-Australians has been publicly
questioned in this "race debate". Some opinion polls have reported disturbing
levels of community support for these views. Multicultural identity, programs and planning
have been publicly questioned. Once again, as in 1984 and 1988, multiculturalism in
Australia must be explained, justified and advocated.
Responding to multiculturalism: state and local legislative and
policy measures
Australia has three levels of government - federal, state and local.
The latter is closely linked to the state level as many legal requirements for local
government emanate from state legislature. Indeed, in NSW, local government exists by
virtue of a State Act (The Local Government Act, 1919, revised in 1993). Local
government is administered by councils under the direction of locally elected councillors,
led by a mayor. In NSW, the most populous state in Australia, there are 177 councils.
Significant legislation is in place to encourage local government to act responsively to
its multicultural and diverse constituents (Thompson et al, 1998: 74-75). In 1987 the NSW
Department of Local Government combined with the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW to help
co-ordinate a Local Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement (LEAPS) project. LEAPS
initiatives focused upon improving translation services, access to local government
services and communication between government and different ethnic groups at the local
level. This program was later reinforced with the legislative backing of the NSW Charter
of Principles for a Culturally Diverse Society (Ethnic Affairs Commission NSW, 1993).
These principles included:
- participation in all levels of public life;
- respect and accommodation of the culture, language and religion of others;
- the greatest opportunity to make use of and participate in relevant activities and
programs provided and/or administered by state government;
- recognition and promotion of NSW's linguistic and cultural diversity as an asset.
The Charter required NSW state government departments and
agencies to produce a Statement of Intent on how they planned to "diversify
their policies and activities", as well as implement access and equity principles
(EAC NSW, 1993: 1). NSW has incorporated this Charter into its local government
legislation, requiring councils to "exercise their functions in a manner that is
consistent with and actively promotes the principles of cultural diversity". Councils
must also report annually on programs undertaken to promote services, as well as access to
services for people with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Local Government
Act, 1993: Sections 8(1) and 428 (2j)). These institutional requirements have
compelled many organisations to confront the need for reform, and to embrace, rather than
shrink from cultural difference.
Other State legislation acknowledges local government as a significant
player in service provision for different ethnic and cultural groups. It also recognises
the important role of encouraging participation in the processes of governance, especially
through effective consultative techniques. Discrimination on the grounds of race is
outlawed and the need has been established for special provisions to ensure equitable
access to services and facilities. Most recently a new regulation was added to the NSW Local
Government Act mandating local councils to develop a detailed social plan which
integrates issues relating to indigenous and NESB people (Local Government (General)
Amendment (Community Social Plans) Regulation 1998).
Immigrant participation in society: the response of
local government
Local government in Australia has the unique opportunity to encourage
the participation of immigrant groups in the processes of municipal governance. This
involvement can extend from direct political representation to being in a position to
access appropriate services and facilities available in a local area. We are engaged in an
ongoing research project which is examining the ways in which local government has
responded to the needs of a culturally diverse population. This is particularly important
in Australia’s most multicultural city, Sydney, where every local council has some
degree of cultural diversity. In this section we discuss the ways in which local councils
are modifying their practices and communication techniques to ensure that more immigrant
groups can participate in the processes of local governance.
In a comprehensive questionnaire sent to councils
across Australia, 5 we asked respondents to identify
the ways in which they endeavour to make services accessible and equitable. We found that
many councils are working in a variety of innovative ways to reach both immigrant people
and traditionally marginalised groups such as the poor, aged, disabled, youth, gays and
women. One Sydney council acknowledged that multiculturalism "presents a challenge to
deliver services in ways that are equitable and easily accessible to all residents".
Nevertheless, it saw it had an ethical responsibility to go beyond employing specialist
officers and supporting multicultural events and grants. It considered that a
"holistic workplace change in culture" was necessary.
It is about a new way of thinking and acting… it is about working
from a social justice framework… Access is about providing all our citizens with the
same opportunities to maximise quality of life objectives. Equity… is about
recognising that although all citizens are meant to be equal in their rights and in the
way they are treated by government, they are in fact very different in their needs,
interests and values. Treating everybody the same simply perpetuates existing
inequalities… intervention must provide appropriate rules, programs and service
provision to combat barriers on social markers concerned with language, culture, race or
religion, [and] gender, if we are to provide a socially just customer service commitment
to our NESB community (Liverpool City Council, 1998-99: 2).
Access and equity policies, as they are known, range from culturally
sensitive employment programs to specific staff training, the widespread use of
translation and interpreter services, communication strategies, and data gathering and
review techniques (Blackwell, 1994). Our survey revealed that many councils are making use
of various initiatives, although this is somewhat ad-hoc and uneven.
The recruitment and training of staff is a key area in developing
accessible and equitable service provision (Blackwell, 1994: 12). Local government cannot
develop cultural sensitivity if it does not have appropriately skilled officers able to
develop policies and practices that acknowledge diversity. Only 11 per cent of all
respondents had an access and equity officer, with more in urban areas (22.7%) compared
with non-metropolitan (6.3%). We did, however find council-wide attempts to expand the
diversity of staff by providing a culturally aware and sensitive work environment. Eighty
four per cent of respondent councils had equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies.
These aim to remove structural and attitudinal impediments to employment and to treat all
employees fairly (Blackwell, 1994: 13). EEO tackles unfair or biased practices affecting
workers, as well as ensuring that management decisions are fair. It also encompasses
policy and practices which recognise and nurture the diversity of staff who can then
deliver the best possible service.
Of those councils surveyed, only a few hire specialist personnel such
as disability workers, community development officers and ethnic and indigenous liaison
officers to deal with specific multicultural and diversity needs. However, the workforce
in some councils is fairly representative of the local ethnic population. We found many
examples of customer service teams with bilingual staff trained to offer assistance as
language aides. Councils also reported working closely with migrant resource and
neighbourhood centres to enhance their sensitivity to the needs of different groups living
in their regions.
Twenty five per cent of General Managers estimated that their staff are
trained about access and equity issues. These respondents identified a range of training
activities including education in cross cultural communication, customer service courses
and individually tailored programs to raise awareness levels of the needs of various
ethnic and indigenous communities. Some training was done in-house and some by specialists
and different government departments. There did not appear to be any institutionalised
access and equity training programs. Nevertheless, General Managers identified definite
successes including the appointment of language aides and the establishment of clear
procedures for translations and the use of interpreters. Community Services staff rated
themselves as having the best knowledge of access and equity policies (77 per cent either
excellent or good), followed by Town Planning and Health, both with 59 per cent, and
Engineering with 53 per cent. While this is a reasonable indication that access and equity
training programs are working, there are still many council employees who have a very poor
understanding.
Use of interpreting and related services
…the lack of English is the greatest barrier to access to services
and participation in the local community (Blackwell, 1994: 27).
It is important for Council to know [the] composition and languages of
its local area so appropriate communication strategies are put in place and all residents
have equal access to Council services (Town Planner, metropolitan NSW in Thompson et al,
1998: 46).
Councils have a responsibility to ensure that they appropriately and
adequately inform all residents about the services available to them. In multicultural
communities this necessitates the use of properly resourced translation and interpreting
services. Suitably qualified staff are also critical. In addition, state and commonwealth
governments publish brochures for local government distribution in community languages.
These include explaining town planning policy, advising restaurants and shops about
correct food handling procedures and educating people about health issues. Many councils
reported using these resources as well as helping each other to develop better
communication strategies with their ethnic and indigenous communities.
However, we were surprised to find that some respondents failed to see
any need to offer translation and interpreter services, suggesting that it was the
responsibility of migrants to learn English. One council officer said, "Everyone in
Australia should be able to speak and read English. Those that can’t should be
educated" (Thompson, et al, 1998: 48). Given the extent of diversity across the
nation, to say nothing of recent Federal Government cuts to English language courses, this
is an unreasonable expectation and will only result in barriers to accessing services.
The adoption of a plain English policy for official correspondence,
documents and regulations is an integral part of any broad based communication strategy.
Our research revealed that 61 per cent of Town Planning, 40 per cent of Community
Services, 52 per cent of Health and 50 per cent of Engineering departments used plain
English. Nevertheless, perceptions of what constitutes plain English vary, and some
documents may unwittingly include jargon and technical language.
Expanding usage of council services
Some councils set targets for expanding the usage levels of their
programs by all community groups. Thirty per cent of Community Service departments did
this, compared with eleven per cent of Health, four per cent of Town Planning and three
per cent of Engineering. Our survey results show a wealth of different ways in which
councils try to reach specific cultural groups.
Some town planners work through the consultation process to
specifically target different cultural groups. As one Sydney council planner stated,
"In exhibiting planning related material we target the ethnic groups which would be
affected and prepare translations or use language aides to ensure they have the
opportunity to comment" (Thompson, 1998: 49). They may also use special programs and
officers, cultural or community networks, general customer service improvements in
accessibility and in some cases, the development of cultural and economic policy
statements.
Many Council Health departments have been trying to increase child
immunisation rates, often with the help of local ethnic workers. Some departments
undertake training in food handling for small businesses, focusing on specific ethnic
groups. Rubbish removal and recycling are also areas of concern. Multi-lingual pamphlets
are frequently used to help educate the community about waste reduction. Educational
programs have also been run for particular ethnic groups and range from anti-drug programs
and women’s health advice, to videos about local government processes and activities.
Community Services departments reach local groups in a variety of ways.
These include employing specialist officers to research, understand and target
disadvantaged and marginalised community groups. Some councils provide part-time staff to
work in the community as well as with different organisations such as migrant resource
centres. Survey respondents also cited examples of where they fund training for different
service providers to help raise levels of cultural awareness. Senior citizens have been
the subject of special programs such as fostering greater participation by different
ethnic groups in senior citizen centres, providing special recreational activities and
supplying culturally appropriate home delivered meals (known as "meals on
wheels").
Local Council Engineering departments have also developed inclusionary
practices. Brochures were produced in community languages to inform residents of the
availability of services and how to access them. Education programs in road and vehicular
safety were also used. We found examples of multi-lingual instructional brochures to
increase child restraint use in cars. Traffic and parking proposals were sometimes
advertised in other languages and children were targeted in an effort to reduce pedestrian
and bicycle accidents.
Many councils have published NESB and indigenous "community
profiles", recognising different needs and identifying appropriate services. In some
areas, particularly disadvantaged groups are targeted in order to improve their access to
services and facilities. For example, ethno-specific youth development programs have been
instituted. Local libraries are often a focus point for the dissemination of information
packages and the provision of multi-lingual material. Child care centres have developed
anti-bias curricula and other culturally appropriate services.
Local government also has a role in giving support to ethnic
communities to assist them in fund raising and grant capture. In addition, many councils
have established regular community consultative committees for indigenous and immigrant
groups. These are designed to promote the involvement of indigenous and non-English
speaking background people in developing culturally appropriate services as well as
encouraging their participation in the management of services and programs, and the
development of policy and legislative responses.
Information gathering techniques
Data collection, as part and parcel of a systematic research program,
must be the cornerstone of local government policy development and implementation. Not
only should a council know who makes up its community, but it needs to closely monitor
service usage levels. We asked councils about their use of techniques for assessing
diversity levels and community perspectives on local issues. We also examined their review
mechanisms.
As well as the many traditional research and data collection
techniques, councils employ a variety of formal mechanisms to gather alternative
perspectives on local issues. These include liaison officers, forums, workshops and
advisory / consultative committees. Directories of religious and ethnic community
organisations are valuable for identifying particular community representatives. Access
and equity implementation guides (for example, Blackwell, 1994) are also helpful in giving
councils ideas about inclusionary practices and policy development.
Regular reviews of which ethnic groups use department services need to
be part of council practice. Without a systemic process it is very difficult to measure
what is really happening, or to argue for the allocation of additional resources. Some
councils have institutionalised review mechanisms which involve examining and reporting on
ethnicity data censuses, as well as conducting regular user needs surveys, gathering
customer feedback and collecting client statistics. In some cases, an issue is examined in
relation to the needs of different cultural groups (for example, domestic violence). And
some councils take note the number of specific ethnic or indigenous users of a facility.
Opening up council services and processes to the community
Our survey findings suggest that community participation and
consultation techniques are widely used in Australian local government (Thompson et al,
1998: 54). However, the act of asking people for their views on plans, policies, program
design and development proposals, does not guarantee that those opinions are carefully
considered and incorporated into the decision making process. Nor can we be sure that all
community groups feel comfortable using the participation techniques offered. The rhetoric
of participation is sometimes used without special commitment to empowering the community
(Filippeli, 1989). This results in a frustrating and alienating process. Nevertheless, we
found a high level of usage of various participation techniques including publications,
public meetings, advertising, research / project officers, polling, surveys, focus groups
or workshops, public inquiries, consultative committees, discussion papers, advisory
committees, and seminars and conferences.
We also found that councils utilise a wide range of different sites or
representatives to assist them in communicating with multiple cultural groups. This
indicates an awareness of the need to go outside the traditional information sharing modes
in order to reach more people in the community. Some of the sites and representatives
include council inquiry counters, social and sporting clubs, libraries, religious centres
and schools, community centres, ethnic day schools, child care centres, ethnic print media
and radio, post offices and banks, health centres, ethnic organisations, citizenship
ceremonies, migrant resource centres, English classes and specialist indigenous land,
health and legal services.
Council meetings are where formal decisions are made and it is
important that the community is encouraged to participate at this level. Some councils
actively encourage indigenous and immigrant people to attend their meetings. Strategies
include personally approaching and inviting community members to participate. Information
about council meetings is distributed through the ethnic media and special efforts may be
made if the issue to be discussed and voted on, is especially culturally sensitive.
Respondents also reported examples of encouraging non-English speaking background and
indigenous individuals to stand for election to become local representatives or
councillors. In turn, this encourages greater participation of these groups in every
aspect of local governance.
Conclusion and future research directions
This council does not have a large ethnic population. However, we do
have a very comprehensive social plan which includes ethnic employment targets and also
[our] EEO plan has similar requirements (Engineer, metropolitan NSW).
In our research on local government and multiculturalism we have found
a growing commitment to implementing policies and programs of inclusion to ensure that
people from different cultural backgrounds are afforded the opportunity to participate in
the processes of local governance. This is particularly noticeable in the cities of
Melbourne and Sydney where there are significant levels of diversity. Given such profound
and widespread levels of cultural diversity, local government in Australia must institute
a systematic response to the needs of different groups. Not only should councils develop
an awareness of the nature of their local diversity, they have to identify and abandon
discriminatory and iniquitous practices in the provision of services and facilities. An
ad-hoc approach is no longer sustainable. Even in those areas which have lower percentages
of immigrant groups, there is an emerging realisation that an appropriate response is
required.
But still there are pockets of resistance from every level of
government. In our review of legislative and policy responses to multiculturalism, we have
described some of the landmark political statements made by right and left wing Australian
governments over the years. Nevertheless, the most recent debates at the Federal level
suggest a shying away from multiculturalism and a turning back to assimilationist
positions. However, the recent history of multiculturalism suggests that the
"Multicultural Project" will emerge stronger and more entrenched than ever. The
widespread acceptance of a shift in national identity indicates that a most important
change has been made. The criticisms, or "backwashes and eddies" (Morrissey and
Mitchell, 1993: 22-5), provide a platform for researchers and policy makers, community
members and citizens to develop and reaffirm the principles and practices of
multiculturalism.
Our research has revealed a wealth of innovative local policy and
practice in the provision of accessible and equitable services and facilities to reach
non-English speaking background immigrant and indigenous groups. These extend from
training staff, to employing specialist officers, and implementing creative practices to
expand the usage of council services. As residents, all members of the community have a
right of service and participation. To refuse to acknowledge these rights is to
effectively deny citizenship.
Our research has produced a comprehensive list of recommendations
across the three levels of government. Not only do these posit further options for study,
they also make suggestions about practical approaches to policy development and
implementation. In particular, we are interested in further researching examples of good
practice which are currently being used by councils to reach immigrant and indigenous
groups. We are also concerned about the inadequate funding mechanisms available at the
local government level and the ways in which money is distributed. Staff training in cross
cultural awareness is another area warranting attention. Our research suggests that
council officers currently involved with the community are well placed to assist their
colleagues in other departments. Resource kits to assist in both policy development and
practical program implementation must also be investigated and devised for use by local
councils.
In the next phase of our research project we turn to the community to
assess its perception of how well multicultural policies are working at the local
government level. Together with the findings from the first part of our work, we will be
able to evaluate local government’s responsiveness to cultural diversity and make
recommendations for enhanced local citizenship which will both celebrate diversity and
embrace principles of social justice.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the ongoing assistance of their
research colleagues Peter Murphy and Ian Burnley. We also thank Bronwyn Hanna for
researching aspects of this paper and Alan Jenner for his statistical analysis and map
preparation.
References
Australian Bureau Of Statistics, 1996 Census, Customised Tables.
Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs (ACPEA) (1982) Multiculturalism
for all Australians: Our developing neighbourhood, Canberra: AGPS.
Blackwell, Ann (1994) For One and All, Access and Equity in Local Government: A
guide to customer service in a multicultural society, Sydney: LGSA NSW.
Bottomley, G. (1986) After the Odyssey: A Study of Greek Australians, Brisbane:
University of Queensland Press.
Burnley, I. (1996) Atlas of the Australian City - 1991 Census, Canberra:
Australian Government Printing Service.
Burnley, I. (1982) Population, Society and Environment in Australia, Melbourne:
Shillington House.
Burnley, I.; Murphy, P. and Fagan, R. (1997) Immigration and Australian Cites,
Sydney: Federation Press.
Choi, C.Y. (1975) Chinese Migration and Settlement in Australia, Sydney:
University of Sydney Press.
Clinton, B. (1996) Speech, 21 November, Royal Botanical Gardens, Sydney. US
Embassy press release.
Committee of Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services (CRMMPS) (1986) Don't
Settle For Less (Jupp Report), Canberra: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
/ AGPS.
Department of Communications and the Arts (DCA) (1994) Creative Nation: Commonwealth
Cultural Policy, Canberra: Garry Hughes & Associates.
Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW (1990) Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement (EAPS)
Program: Strategic Plan, Ashfield: EACNSW.
Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW (1993) NSW Charter of Principles for a Culturally
Diverse Society, Ashfield: EACNSW.
Filippeli, M. (1989) Public Participation and the Environment Planning and
Assessment Act, Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, School of Town Planning, Sydney:
University of New South Wales.
Friedmann, J. and Wolff, G. (1983) World City Formation, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 6: 309-343.
Friedmann, J. (1993) Where we stand, a decade of world research, paper presented
at the World Cities in the World System Conference, New York: Centre for Innovative
Technology.
Grassby, A. (1973) A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future, Canberra: Department
of Immigration/ AGPS.
Hanson, P. (1996) Appropriation Bill (No.1) 1996-97, Second Reading, Member for
Oxley. Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 September, 3860-3.
Canberra.
Howard, J. (1995) The Australia I believe in: the values, directions and policy
priorities of a Coalition Government, Fourth Headland Speech. Fyshwick: Liberal Party
of Australia, 13 December.
Howard, J. (1996) Address to the Queensland division of the Liberal Party State
Council, Transcript, 22 September. Canberra: Office of the Prime Minister.
Hugo, G. and Channell, D. (1986) Filipino Immigration to and Settlement in
Australia: A Case Study, Paper presented at the 3rd National Conference of the
Australian Population Association, Adelaide: Flinders University.
Jupp, J. (1991) Managing Ethnic Diversity: How does Australia compare? In Castles, S.
(ed) Australian Compared, Sydney: Allen and Unwin: 38-54.
Lewins, F. (1987) The "Blainey Debate" in Hindsight. Australian & New
Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 23, no.2, 261-73.
Liverpool City Council (1998-1999) Local Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement (LEAPS)
Business Plan, Liverpool City Council LEAPS Committee.
Liverpool City Council (1992) Local Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement (LEAPS) Annual
Report, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council LEAPS Committee.
McLeay, C. (1997) Inventing Australia: A critique of recent cultural policy rhetoric. Australian
Geographica Studies, 35, 1: 40-46.
Morrissey, M. and Mitchell, C. (1993) Community Relations Strategy: An evaluation,
Canberra: OMA / AGPS.
Murphy, P. (1995) Immigrant Arrivals in Australia, Urban Futures, 18: 42-46.
National Multicultural Advisory Council (NMAC) (1997) Multicultural Australia: The
way forward, Canberra: NMAC.
O'Connor, K. (1993) Mega Metropolitan Areas in Australia 1970-1990, People and Place,
2:21-24.
Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) (1989) National Agenda for a Multicultural
Australia ... Sharing Our Future, Canberra: AGPS.
Parkin, A. (1987) Ethnic Politics: A comparative study of two immigrant societies,
Australia and the United Kingdom, in Bell, R. (ed) Multicultural Societies: A
comparative reader, Sydney: Sable.
Review of Migrant Services and Programs (RMSP) (1978) Report of the Review of
Migrant Services and Programs (Galbally Report), Canberra: AGPS.
Searle G. (1996) Sydney as a Global City, Sydney: Department of Urban Affairs
and Planning.
Stimson R. (1995) Emergence of a New Space: Economy of Cities and Regions in Australia,
in Brotchie J et al (eds), Cities in Competition: Productive and Sustainable Cities for
the 21st Century, Melbourne: Longman Australia.
Thompson J. (1976) Australia Through Italian Eyes, Melbourne: Oxford University
Press.
Thompson, S.; Dunn, K.; Burnley, I.; Murphy, P. and Hanna, B. (1998)
Multiculturalism and Local Governance: A national perspective, Sydney: NSW Department
of Local Government.
Footnotes
1. This date is both celebrated as the
"founding of the nation" and mourned as the beginning of the "white
invasion" by the original inhabitants of the country. Now known as Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islanders, the indigenous people had occupied the land for at least 40,000
years before European settlement.
Back to paper
2. The exception was the large influx of Chinese men
during the 1850’s gold rush (Parkin, 1987: 110)
Back to paper
3. The Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area is also known more
technically as the Sydney Statistical Division (Sydney SD).
Back to paper
4. Pauline Hanson, the Independent Member of Parliament
has become well known for her controversial views and has received widespread publicity
throughout Australia and the Asian region. Since the 1998 Federal election, when she
failed to win office as a Senator, Hanson has received very little attention.
Back to paper
5. We conducted the first extensive survey of the 750
local councils across Australia regarding their policies and practices for addressing
cultural diversity. The national survey comprised five questionnaires targeting key
personnel in Administration (General Managers), Community Services, Town Planning,
Engineering and Health departments. Our response rate was close to 50 per cent, with the
state of NSW returning the most questionnaires. We also asked councils to send us any
relevant documentation on multicultural and indigenous policies. Both quantitative and
qualitative responses were received and analysed.
Back to paper
|
