Click here to return to the Articles and Opinion Pieces Index
The following opinion pieces have been published by the President and Commissioners. Reproduction of the opinion pieces must include reference to where the opinion piece was originally published.
Foundation for prosperous, peaceful nation - The Multiculturalism Debate
Author: Catherine Branson QC, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Published in The Australian, Saturday 19 February 2011, Page 12
Commitment to human rights and migrants' rights is the cement that helps hold us together
THERE has been much debate about the merits of multiculturalism in Australia in recent weeks.
Multiculturalism means different things to different people.
Successful societies, such as Australia, are built on shared values. It is my belief that increasingly we will find the bedrock of our shared values in universally recognised human rights.
Most of us instinctively know that cultural diversity need not be divisive. We know it is discrimination and other forms of social exclusion that are divisive and damaging to individuals and to community harmony.
The shared values and aspirations we have as Australians are all close equivalents of universally recognised human rights. These include our commitment to democracy, a fair go and the rule of law; our rejection of violence in all of its forms; our acceptance that men and women have equal rights; and our belief that individuals should be judged on their merits and not by reference to irrelevant factors such as sexuality, colour, race, religion or national origin.
Increased community understanding and respect for human rights will provide not only the cement to hold our increasingly diverse nation together as a free, fair, respectful and peaceful community, but also the framework for resolving conflicts as they arise.
There will inevitably be circumstances where a boundary must be drawn between exercise of culture, itself a human right, and respect for other human rights. Fortunately, human rights principles recognise that where human rights come into conflict, as they do on occasion, rights may be limited in the public interest provided that the measure is proportionate and reasonable.
Australia is a well-functioning democracy. We are fortunate that in our country critical conflicts between rights can be addressed, if necessary, in our democratically elected parliament. Such conflict between rights is not new in Australia; indeed, it is often a reflection of the way societies and their values change through time.
For example, when the Sex Discrimination Act was drafted in 1984 it was recognised that the right of women not to be discriminated against sometimes conflicted with the right to freedom of religion and belief. It was broadly accepted that there should be some limitations on the act's operation. Public debate will continue about whether the act's limitations are proportionate and reasonable.
But in democratic Australia we recognise two important things: our commitment to human rights provides an invaluable framework for resolving difficult issues of this kind; and, should it prove necessary, we can look to parliament to use that framework.
There are compelling practical reasons for Australia to continue to embrace multiculturalism and our commitment to human rights. If we insist new migrants abandon their cultures, we risk exacerbating alienation and social exclusion. We know that social exclusion leads to inequalities of opportunity and can give rise to unrest, radicalisation and violence. I am convinced that a solid commitment to human rights and multiculturalism gives us a strong foundation for a prosperous and peaceful Australia.
Catherine Branson QC is President of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
