Skip to main content

Multiculturalism and “Team Australia”: Speech to Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural NSW symposium

Race Discrimination

Thirty years ago, we were warned that Australia was fracturing into a nation of tribes. We were warned that multiculturalism and immigration were undermining the Australian national identity.

The warning came in a speech delivered by the historian Geoffrey Blainey. It was a significant intervention. Professor Blainey was – and remains – one of Australia’s eminent historians. His speech would spark a national debate. It would be the first major public challenge to Australian multiculturalism. [1]

Since then, there have been few periods when there hasn’t been debate about multiculturalism. Diversity’s critics have been perennially noisy. But for the most part Australians have come to accept and embrace cultural diversity. It is something that is a part of our daily lives. Far from controversial, it is a natural presence – there in our homes, schools and neighbourhoods; there in our shops, offices and workplaces.

Back in 1984, faced with dire predictions of national discord, not everyone would have been confident that multicultural Australia would succeed. Yet there is no better way to describe our reality. Modern Australia is a success story of multiculturalism.

I am delighted, then, to be here as the Community Relations Commission relaunches as Multicultural NSW. This relaunch is an emphatic statement of our cultural diversity.

Gone are the days when people felt awkward about the word multicultural. Few these days are splitting hairs about the difference between a multiethnic Australia and a multicultural Australia. We have grown more comfortable in our own skin, whatever that colour may be. And more relaxed about there being more than one way that you can be Australian. We have, if you like, become rather relaxed and comfortable about Australian multiculturalism.

My congratulations to you, Hakan Harman, for your leadership in producing this new strategic vision for Multicultural NSW. You and your colleagues have my full support for your efforts to engage, enable and enrich the people of NSW. After all, those of us who are friends of multiculturalism have an enduring collective responsibility – to tend to our cultural harmony.

Vigilance

For all of our multicultural success, we must remain vigilant of bigotry and racism. Racial discrimination remains – in many forms.

Take the incident during the weekend in Sydney involving Nilson Dos Santos. An Australian citizen originally from Brazil, Mr Dos Santos was told in a job interview at a Darlinghurst café that he would not get a job as a barista because he was black. Earlier this month, we saw nasty racist violence, when a gang of youths threatened Jewish schoolchildren on a Sydney bus, in an abhorrent anti-Semitic attack. In our federal politics just this week, we have seen intemperate outbursts of xenophobia.

Then there are more insidious challenges. One concerns the reporting and commentary about Australia’s Muslim and Arab communities, in light of armed conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

On Sunday I was struck by one opinion column in the Sunday Telegraph, titled “Muslims do hate jihadists”. It was written by David Penberthy, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph.

Penberthy revisited an episode back in 2005, when the Sydney Swans were campaigning to win their first AFL premiership. The then Catholic Archbishop George Pell said that God would be cheering for the Swans. To test whether this was indeed the case, the Telegraph’s reporters approached Sheik Taj-El-Din Hilaly – who obliged by posing for a photo with a Swans scarf and Sherrin football outside Lakemba Mosque. The headline in the Telegraph was, “Up there, Hilaly”. (For those unversed in Aussie Rules folklore, this was a reference to a legendary footballer Roy Cazaly, and to a popular song of the 1970s.)

According to Penberthy, the footy photo was “one of the few occasions I recall when an Australian Islamic spokesman was asked to enter the mainstream in a purely amicable context, simply to share a laugh”. As Penberthy rued, “the interplay with Islam is largely a reactive and negative one, whereby Muslims are urged to respond to events overseas, address problems in their midst, denounce things which should be denounced”.[2]

In recent weeks, Australians – of all faiths and backgrounds – have been seriously concerned by reports that Australian citizens are fighting as militants in Iraq and Syria. We have all – again, Australians of all faith and backgrounds – been disgusted by pictures showing a boy holding up the severed head of a slain fighter. And yet, if you were to read the letters pages of our newspapers, tune into talkback radio, or scan the comments sections of news websites, you would be mistaken for thinking there were no “moderate” Muslim-Australians prepared to repudiate domestic extremism or acts of violent barbarism.

This is, of course, far from the truth. While there are very serious issues with “homegrown terrorism”, we should not be casting aspersions on Muslim and Arab Australian communities at large. Not when so many of its leaders and members have unequivocally condemned terrorism. Not when even the Director-General of ASIO David Irvine has commended Muslim community leaders for the positive role they have played in countering domestic radicalism.[3]  We should not be judging entire communities, whose members are law-abiding citizens, on the basis of a very small minority of extremists.

It is for this reason that David Penberthy’s column on Sunday stood out so much. It has been rare to have reasoned and measured pieces of commentary on these issues. Unfortunately, the default in some sections of the media has been more divisive and sensationalist.

We have had front-page headlines that Australia is engaged in a 100-year war against Islam. Just this week, we saw one newspaper with a two-page spread about the suburb of Lakemba titled, “Inside Sydney’s Muslim Land”, where the stand-first declared that the correspondent had spent 24 hours in a place “where a pervasive monoculture has erased the traditional Aussie way of life”.[4]

This is not the kind of language one would expect. Not in a country that, according to all evidence, is very relaxed and comfortable about its multiculturalism. The tone aside, such language is not even accurate.

Indeed, in the case of Lakemba, the correspondent’s description of a suburb that is  “remarkably distinct from the rest of the city” and that has an ethnic mix “similar to what you’d find in any Arabic city” does not stand up to factual scrutiny. Others have already highlighted this, but it’s worth repeating.

According to the 2011 census, 10.9 per cent of Lakemba residents have Bangladeshi ancestry. Ten per cent have Lebanese ancestry, 6.2 per cent have Chinese cultural origins, while 6.2 per cent declared they had Australian ancestry. Rounding out the top five, 5.7 per cent of residents said they had English ancestry.[5]  I am not sure what you have in mind when you think of a monocultural suburb, but it certainly does not meet any definition I can think of. As for Lakemba being “Muslim Land”, the Census indicates that 51.8 per cent of the suburb is in fact Muslim. Almost 20 per cent of the suburb is either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.[6]

Reading such pieces of reporting as Monday’s “Muslim Land” dispatch made me feel like I had been transported back in time to 1984. There, as with Professor Blainey, one could detect the distinctive voice of loss and anxiety. But a voice removed from the cultural reality of today’s multicultural Australia, searching for certainty in a past that is no longer there.

Racial Discrimination Act

The conversation about Muslim Australians has been muddied by one thing. Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that the Federal Government would not proceed with its proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. According to the Prime Minister, he was making a “leadership call” to abandon a repeal of section 18C of the Act. The announcement coincided with a move by the Government to toughen national security laws to combat homegrown terrorism.

It was the right leadership call by the Prime Minister. There was no good reason for weakening legal protections against racial vilification. It was a welcome move by the Federal Government to listen to the concerns expressed by Australian communities about the likely impact of its proposed changes.

And the concerns were both profound and widespread. According to a Fairfax-Nielsen poll in April, 88 per cent of Australians believed it should remain unlawful to offend, insult or humiliate someone because of their race.[7]  Alongside multicultural and Indigenous communities, the legal profession, human rights organisations, psychologists and public health professionals all voiced their concerns about the impact of repealing section 18C.

In an unprecedented manner, more than 5600 submissions were made to the Government about its exposure draft of changes. According to information obtained by Professor Simon Rice of the ANU’s College of Law, more than 76 per cent of submissions called for the abandonment of a repeal.[8]

As I have made clear during the past year, any dilution of the Racial Discrimination Act risks sending a dangerous social signal. It risks encouraging people to believe that they could abuse others on racial grounds with impunity. The risk is that people may believe they can offend, insult or humiliate others because of their race but claim the absolute defence of free speech.

However, it was unfortunate that the abandonment of changes to the Racial Discrimination Act was announced in a particular way. We were told it was necessary for bolstered counter-terror measures. Yet, as far as I am aware, there was never a suggestion, from any community, that retaining racial vilification laws was necessary for fighting domestic extremism.

The argument for retaining section 18C was rather more direct. Namely, if Australian society is committed to racial tolerance, the commitment should be reflected in our law. The law should set some civil standards of acceptable behaviour. The law should provide remedies for public acts of racial vilification. And a right to be a bigot should not take precedence over a right to be free from bigotry’s effects.

It is also inaccurate to suggest that Muslim communities were somehow the most vocal or influential communities in opposing the repeal of section 18C. Multicultural and Indigenous communities were equally vocal in their opposition. There was a united commitment to racial tolerance. It was understood that a change in the law would have the potential to affect all Australians – and not just some.

Let us be clear, as well, about which attributes are covered by the Racial Discrimination Act. The Act’s provisions on racial vilification cover conduct that relates to race, colour, ethnicity or national origin. It does not cover the attribute of religion. To suggest that a decision not to repeal section 18C was motivated by special concern about Muslim Australians misses one basic fact: the law doesn’t specifically protect religion. Under federal statute, it is unlawful to vilify someone on racial grounds, but this doesn’t extend to religious vilification.

It is understandable, then, that many Muslim Australians, and also Arab Australians, would have felt bitter sweetness about the RDA announcement.[9]  This hasn’t eased during the past fortnight. There has been sustained talk about the need for a commitment to a so-called Team Australia. I have heard from many Muslim and Arab Australians a serious concern that their communities are being singled out. That they are having their national loyalty unfairly questioned.

All this comes immediately after a prolonged national debate during which multicultural Australia showed remarkable and unwavering moral solidarity. At a time when some communities are being placed under intense scrutiny and at times subjected to unjust criticism, it may be time again for multicultural Australia to unite around tolerance and non-discrimination. An indignity to one community is an indignity to every community.

Why multiculturalism works

There has been much debate about the meaning of the phrase Team Australia. Just earlier this week the Prime Minister reiterated that “everyone has got to be on Team Australia”. And that, “everyone has got to put this country, its interests, its values and its people first, and you don’t migrate to this country unless you want to join our team”.[10]

Two weeks ago I was asked in a media interview what I thought about the concept of Team Australia. Was it a divisive concept? Could it be interpreted to mean that there are some groups who are not somehow part of Team Australia?

These are fair questions. Those who have coined the phrase are best placed to elaborate upon exactly what they mean.

For those who have migrated here, however, there is rarely any question about loyalty to Australia. Making the decision to start a new life in another country is not one that is taken lightly. There is no more powerful aspiration than to be a citizen. It is the case that within ten years of arriving, more than 80 per cent of immigrants take out Australian citizenship.[11]  It is an act solemnised by a pledge whenever someone naturalises as a citizen: “I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.”

In those four clauses we have writ the contract of citizenship in this country. This contract is central to the success of Australian multiculturalism.

Contrary to its critics, Australian multiculturalism has never sanctioned a form of cultural relativism. Yes, everyone should have a freedom to express their cultural identity and heritage. But as with all freedoms, this isn’t absolute. It is also accompanied by duties. There must be a commitment to liberal democratic values – to parliamentary democracy, to the rule of law, to equality of the sexes, to freedom of speech.

Australian multiculturalism has always been an exercise in nation-building. The limits of diversity have always been limited by citizenship. When the word multicultural was first invoked in Australia in the 1970s, by the then immigration minister Al Grassby, he referred to multiculturalism expanding “the family of the nation”. It was something that was meant to strengthen Australian national identity, not to supersede it.

This is reflected in the official statements of multiculturalism. Thus in the late 1970s, multicultural policy stressed that the expression of ethnic identity must not be “at the expense of society at large”, but rather be “interwoven into the fabric of our nationhood”.[12]  Since the 1980s, multicultural policy has explicitly been stated in terms of a balance of rights and responsibilities.

What we have, in other words, is a robust form of multiculturalism. One which has its foundations in our liberal democracy. One which has never shied away from rejecting cultural beliefs and practices that are inconsistent with civic values. Yet one where diversity is entirely compatible with patriotism. In a multicultural Australia, we have a love of country that is founded not on race or ancestry, but on citizenship.

Which brings me back to the idea of “Team Australia”. If “Team Australia” is simply shorthand for an Australian liberal democratic community, for a community of equal citizens, I don’t think any of us would have an issue with it. Signing up to this is already part of the contract of multicultural citizenship. All of us are already signed up. We are all proud to be Australians.

But if “Team Australia” is meant to suggest something else, we are entitled to ask for an explanation. Manufacturing patriotism can sometimes do more to divide than to unite. Genuine civic pride comes from within; it is not something that others can command us to display.

Our debate is never strictly, of course, about concepts. Much of it also has to do with tone. The tone of leadership matters. And it has been a strength of our multicultural experience that political and civic leaders have understood the importance of ensuring that all Australians, regardless of their faith or cultural background, can feel that they can indeed belong to the family of the nation.

On this question, there can be no doubt of the leadership that Multicultural NSW is exercising. I am delighted to be with you today as a friend; I thank you for your support for the Australian Human Rights Commission’s work; and I look forward to continuing with you the vocation of nation-building to which we are all dedicated.

ENDS

 


 

[1] See for example, T Soutphommasane, Don’t Go Back to Where You Came From (2012), p 24.
[2] D Penberthy, ‘Muslims do hate jihadists’, Sunday Telegraph, 17 August 2014.
[3] M Grattan, ‘Grattan on Friday: In Conversation with ASIO chief David Irvine, The Conversation, 15 August 2014, at http://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-in-conversation-with-asio-… (viewed 19 August 2014).
[4] T Blair, ‘Inside Sydney’s Muslim Land’, The Daily Telegraph, 18 August 2014. 
[5] Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘2011 Census QuickStats: Lakemba – Wiley Park’, 2011, at http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011… (viewed 19 August 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Reported in ‘Race hate: voters tell Brandis to back off’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 April 2014, at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/race-hate-voters-… (viewed 19 August 2014).
[8] T Soutphommasane, ‘In bowing to public opinion, PM shows good leadership’, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 August 2014, at http://www.smh.com.au/comment/in-bowing-to-public-opinion-pm-shows-good… (viewed 19 August 2014); see also H Aston, ‘Few back change to race laws’, Sydney Morning Herald, 1 August 2014, at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/few-back-change-t… (viewed 19 August 2014).
[9] R Kattan, ‘Fighting Arabphobia’, The Hoopla, 12 August 2014, at http://thehoopla.com.au/fighting-arabphobia/ (viewed 19 August 2014).
[10] See, E Griffiths, ‘Tony Abbott meets with Muslim community leaders in bid to sell proposed counter-terrorism laws’, ABC, 18 August 2014, at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/abbott-meets-with-muslim-leaders-… (viewed 19 August 2014). 
[11] See T Soutphommasane, Don’t Go Back to Where You Came From, p 67.
[12] Ibid., p 17.

Dr Tim Soutphommasane, Race Discrimination Commissioner