Chapter 5 Multiculturalism and the Social Inclusion Agenda

Introduction

5.1                   The Australian Government’s statement on social inclusion, A Stronger, Fairer Australia, released in 2009, sets out the Government’s vision and strategy for social inclusion, now and into the future:

The Australian Government’s social inclusion policies recognise that while every person is ultimately responsible for making a go of their lives, not everyone begins at the same starting point and some people strike setbacks or crises during their lives.[1]

5.2                   The Social Inclusion Agenda attempts to ensure all Australians have the opportunity and necessary support to participate, through all sectors of the community working together.

To achieve this we need to tackle increasingly complex and entrenched forms of disadvantage.[2]

5.3                   In 2008, the Australian Social Inclusion Board was established as the main advisory body to Government on ways to achieve better outcomes for the most disadvantaged in our community.

The Board engages with the community, business, the not-for-profit sector, academics, advisory groups and all levels of government to connect better policy with the knowledge and experience of the research, business and community sectors.[3]

5.4                   The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) contains the Social Inclusion Unit, which coordinates a whole-of-government response to the Social Inclusion Agenda by working with the other line agencies and, through Council of Australian Governments (COAG), with the States and Territories to further the Government's Social Inclusion Agenda.[4]

5.5                   Representatives from the Unit explained to the Committee that the Social Inclusion Agenda has sought to focus on outcomes for the Australian Government to make tangible improvements to the lives of people, particularly those facing multiple forms of disadvantage.[5]

5.6                   In recognition of the range of Australian Government departments that collaborate in delivering programs and services to support social inclusion outcomes for disadvantaged people, The Australian Public Service Social Inclusion Policy Design and Delivery Toolkit was developed. Commonwealth agencies are to apply the social inclusion method of policy design and delivery set out in the toolkit. Priority groups identified in the toolkit are:

• Homeless people
  
  
• Children at risk of long term disadvantage
  
  
• Indigenous Australians
  
  
• People living with mental illness or disability
  
  
• Communities experiencing concentrations of disadvantage and exclusion
  
  
• Jobless families, including the long-term unemployed and the recently unemployed (‘the vulnerable unemployed’)
  
  
• Low skilled adults who are at greater risk of unemployment
  
  

In designing actions to increase participation for at-risk groups, particular attention should also be given to:

• Vulnerable new arrivals and refugees.[6]

5.7                   A social inclusion indicator framework was developed and a baseline report on the indicators was published by the Australian Social Inclusion Board in January 2010, titled Social Inclusion in Australia: How Australia is Faring. An update, Social Inclusion in Australia: How Australia is Faring (2nd Edition), was published in 2012.[7]

5.8                   In April 2010, the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council released its statement The People of Australia: the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council’s Statement on Cultural Diversity and Recommendations to Government. Included in this report was a recommendation that:

…the government’s Social Inclusion Agenda develop strategies that will address the particular needs of vulnerable migrants and refugees, ensuring that location-based approaches reach these groups and that there is consultation with appropriate clients, experts and advisory bodies.[8]

The role of multiculturalism in the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Agenda

5.9                   The Committee sought evidence on the role of multiculturalism in the Social Inclusion Agenda. Many responses to the issue were looking for more explicit recognition, both at a policy and a practical level, of the interrelationship between multiculturalism and the Social Inclusion Agenda. The fact that this relationship is currently not explicit was seen as a major failing.

5.10               Dr Zoe Morrison from the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) discussed this issue in detail for the Committee. She stated that since the Social Inclusion Agenda was launched it has not included any specific mention of multiculturalism, migrants or refugees. She also said that many have viewed this as an explicit avoidance of the term multiculturalism.

For some, the absence of multiculturalism from the social inclusion agenda has even spelt the death knell of multiculturalism in Australia.[9]

5.11               Various descriptions of the nexus between the two areas included:

• multiculturalism as a logical ‘subset of the total strategies serving the overall goals of the social inclusion agenda’[10];
  
  
• multiculturalism as an increasingly complex social aim, but it is imperative for Australian political leadership to ‘back the reality of multicultural Australia with political will’ in order to avoid the ‘divisive trends that manifest when political will does not champion the cause of diversity… [leading to] dangerous disempowerment of significant sectors of the population’;[11]

  and

• social inclusion and multiculturalism are highly complementary, providing an environment where people can begin to re-establish new lives with a sense of security and safety.[12]

5.12               The United Nations Association of Australia (Victorian Division) described the relationship between multiculturalism and social inclusion as:

Multiculturalism means encouraging mutual respect, human rights, cultural expression and social participation, while roadblocks in the way of full participation in society are dealt with under social inclusion.[13]

5.13               Ms Padma Raman from the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) stated that: ‘Government policies need to recognise the centrality of multiculturalism and human rights to achieve and enhance social inclusion, cohesion and productivity’.[14] The AHRC described the two areas of multiculturalism and social inclusion as being completely interlinked:

It is bizarre to think about social inclusion and not think about the groups that are not included in society.
… even if you are looking at social inclusion through an economic lens, to miss culture and ethnicity in that is just mind boggling. So often those things intersect. Where you have economic disadvantage in your communities, you often have cultural difference.[15]

5.14               The Settlement Council of Australia’s (SCOA) submission provided a good discussion on these issues. It explained that multiculturalism and social inclusion operate in the same terrain when they are seeking to reduce the barriers to full social participation, and that they should and could be rather more effective complementary agendas:

Multiculturalism addresses the development of mutual respect, human rights, cultural expression and social participation. Social inclusion addresses the barriers to social participation.[16]

5.15               However SCOA also warned that multicultural policy should be viewed as distinct from social inclusion policy as it is not concerned with social ‘deficits’ in the same way—or to the same extent— as social inclusion.^[17]

5.16               SCOA’s Ms Sky de Jersey highlighted the urgent need to deepen social inclusion in Australia and to create an environment in which migrants and refugees can fully participate in all aspects of life in Australia.

5.17               She stated that a consistent approach across Federal and State Government in the Social Inclusion Agenda is needed. She explained that any social inclusion framework needs to include a culturally and linguistically diverse element:

…every facet of Australian society needs to include multiculturalism and social inclusion.[18]

5.18               Ultimately, the two are inherently reliant upon each other and should be more closely linked:

To succeed, we believe that the renewal of multiculturalism needs to inform and be informed by the Australian Government’s social inclusion agenda.[19]

5.19               However, Fairfield Migrant Interagency stated that implementation of the agenda has not demonstrated that there are sufficient systems in place to sustain the implementation of multicultural policy as described in the National Policy Statement.

Under the current Federal Government social inclusion agenda there is no clear role nor any mention of multiculturalism.[20]

5.20               Dr Morrison went on to explain that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) specifically refers to ‘ongoing issues of discrimination and inequity in access to and delivery of services experienced by members of certain minority communities’.[21]

Experiencing deeply felt racism, with all its many ramifications, is an additional reason to consider the role of multiculturalism within an Australia social inclusion agenda.[22]

5.21               The BSL submission asserted that the absence of a cultural and racial dimension to the Social Inclusion Agenda has two main consequences: a) cultural and racial dimensions of well-recognised (socioeconomic) aspects of social inclusion are not taken into account, affecting the ability to address the welfare of disadvantaged people of minority ethnic groups; and b) social inclusion remains limited in Australia to narrow notions of socioeconomic inclusion, without regard to other needs of minority ethnic groups, also affecting their overall welfare:[23]

The Brotherhood of St Laurence believes that in the Australian social inclusion agenda priority should remain with the most socioeconomically disadvantaged, but it needs to be recognised that the most disadvantaged include people from minority ethnic groups, and that their welfare is inherently bound to cultural and racial issues, which are also inherently linked to socioeconomic factors, as discussed above. This means that cultural and racial exclusion issues must be incorporated adequately into the Australian social inclusion agenda.[24]

5.22               Mr Pino Migliorino, representing the Federation of Ethnic Councils of Australia (FECCA), explained that the fact that the Social Inclusion Agenda is lacking language and culture components has limited its capacity to deal with the diversity of the population:

Under our social inclusion agenda there is no provision for or identification of people who do not speak English as being particularly disadvantaged. I think the reality is that, if you do not speak English in Australia, you are disadvantaged, and that needs to be considered.[25]

5.23               BSL asserted that multiculturalism ‘must be part of the social inclusion framework. It must be part of the mainstream effort around social justice concerns, around equity and recognition, but it must also inform social inclusion’.[26] However, it was also stressed that:

…multiculturalism needs to shape social inclusion, but it ought not to be watered down within it, because it has a longer history and a much more successful history, whereas social inclusion is still on P-plates.[27]

5.24               Conversely, a joint submission to the Committee expressed reservations about the two areas being too closely linked:

Multiculturalism and social inclusion are complementary public policies: both are tangible actions designed to ensure social justice that bring human rights principles into effect. While there are clearly parallels and synergies between multiculturalism and social inclusion they are not the same, and it would be most unwise to subsume multiculturalism under the broad social inclusion agenda.[28]

Case study 5.1 Social inclusion and Darebin City

Darebin City Council is explicit in its support for diversity and commits significant financial resources to creating and sustaining community harmony. Council has devised its own social inclusion framework which explicitly addresses racism. It also has an Interfaith Council which provides advice on faith related matters; the Spectrum Migrant Resource Centre as a one-stop-shop catering for the needs of newly arrived and established migrants and refugees; and has a leadership role in local government compliance with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Compared with the rest of metropolitan Melbourne, Darebin has some of the highest proportions of people born in non-English speaking countries, people speaking a language other than English at home, and people who are not proficient in English. The Darebin Social Inclusion Framework guides the city council’s  work in contributing to a more inclusive community. While many of the Council’s programs and services are inclusive and target those who are most disadvantaged, the framework establishes the core requirements of an inclusive community and sets out what is required for Council to become inclusive in its policies, practices and service delivery. This includes: excellent community engagement, policies which integrate inclusion goals, responsive planning, innovation and advocacy. The framework recognises what is in the sphere of local government to control, and where its role becomes one of advocate and influencer. An approach which integrates these actions will have significant benefit to those residents from diverse cultural, language and faith backgrounds. Darebin City Council recognises that one of the criticisms of the Federal Social Inclusion Agenda also applies to the Council’s framework, in that they do not specifically identify those groups who experience exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination – such as migrants and refugees. Instead the focus is on the basic requirements of all citizens to enjoy a fulfilling life where they are part of their community – a job, a home, access to learning opportunities, engagement with their community and participation in decisions which affect them. The Council asserts that this dilemma needs resolution in order to address these criticisms and strengthen government approaches to social inclusion.

Source Darebin City Council, Submission 394.

5.25               In evidence to the Committee, PM&C recognised that people with a different cultural and linguistic background are potentially at higher risk of being disadvantaged. However, this is not the basis from which the Social Inclusion Agenda has looked at these issues. Rather, the focus has been on how to help people who face multiple barriers to disadvantage, such as entering the employment market or gaining sufficient education.[29]

5.26               The Race Discrimination Commissioner Dr Helen Szoke explained to the Committee that in enacting a social inclusion policy framework, government should draw on issues around multiculturalism and also:

… the notion that any of the work being enacted around social inclusion must have a filter which takes into account culturally and linguistically diverse communities and Indigenous communities.[30]

5.27               Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre (FMRC) suggested that a more appropriate question might be ‘what should be the role of the Social Inclusion Agenda in promoting the benefits of multiculturalism so that Australians of all ethnicities are socially included?’:

Australia accepts migrants with lesser or no fluency in English under the family and humanitarian streams. Recent arrival in a new country whose government, social and legal systems are all new and where the new migrant usually has no social networks, needs to be recognised as a difficult transition period for all migrants, even those fluent in English.[31]

5.28               FMRC insists that the Australian Government’s Social Inclusion Agenda particularly needs to acknowledge the multiple social disadvantages suffered by refugees and humanitarian entrants who often have been subject to multiple difficulties and horrific events, and are amongst the most vulnerable and the most socially excluded people in Australia. ‘Refugees and humanitarian entrants deserve to be a top priority in any Social Inclusion Agenda’.[32]

5.29               The PM&C submission explained that the concepts of social inclusion and multiculturalism are related in a number of significant ways, and that The People of Australia, Australia’s Multicultural Policy recognises the breadth and diversity of Australian society and ‘complements the Social Inclusion Agenda by emphasising fairness and inclusion for all Australians, regardless of cultural, religious or linguistic diversity’.[33]

5.30               Several submissions claimed that there should be explicit recognition of multiculturalism in the multiple disadvantage indicators within the Social Inclusion Agenda as it relates to new migrants, and that Australia’s multicultural policy should align with the government’s Social Inclusion Agenda.[34]

5.31               Professor Andrew Jakubowicz stated that a clear articulation of the relations between cultural diversity and social inclusion is needed.[35]

5.32               NEMBC saw problems with an emphasis on social inclusion when discussing multiculturalism. It felt this was predicated on the idea of difference being a negative, the subtext being that people should assimilate not integrate.

As a concept, social inclusion is limited in its ability to account for ‘difference’. It has problems identifying diversity and rights and it struggles with the idea that distinction from mainstream society may be a ‘positive value’. Multiculturalism is able to retain that positive approach and offers scope to recognise rights, social justice, cultural diversity and social cohesion. A social inclusion policy should recognise the benefits of cultural and linguistic diversity, the importance of English language proficiency for migrants and refugees, the destructive effects of discrimination and racism and look at better models for active participation in society.[36]

5.33               BSL’s Dr Morrison also advocated the need to change our notions of what social inclusion means in Australia:

It cannot mean a form of assimilation and a subsequent silence in relation to racial and cultural exclusion. Rather it needs to encompass the priorities of a multicultural society that empowers all sections of Australian society to fulfil their potential and be fully accepted and respected in their diversity. Along with this, it also needs to include the policy and services that specifically recognise the social inclusion issues faced by disadvantaged migrants and refugees.[37]

5.34               Amongst the suggestions for including multiculturalism in the Social Inclusion Agenda, there were also calls for definition of the key terms to provide clarity.

… we would also value a clear articulation about what social inclusion means, specifically for migrants and refugees. The term ‘social inclusion’ looks to address the factors that lead to exclusion, while I see multiculturalism as the valuing of diversity that it brings.[38]

5.35               PM&C’s Social Inclusion Unit described social inclusion as being about all Australians having the opportunity to participate fully in the economic and community life of the nation, recognising that some people need extra support to do this. By definition, it is an inclusive policy, which ‘applies to all Australians regardless of ethnicity, cultural or linguistic background, gender, age or other factors’.[39] PM&C’s Mr Paul Ronalds recognised that the sheer breadth of the Social Inclusion Agenda is a challenge.[40]

5.36               The Spectrum Migrant Resource Centre went further, to recommend that the Australian Government clearly articulate the links between social inclusion and multiculturalism and send clear public messages reinforcing the value of diversity.[41]

5.37               SCOA concluded that social inclusion is but one of four multicultural principles that should be implemented:

If the whole of government takes responsibility then we can better ensure the implementation of the four Multicultural principles of access and equity, human rights, social inclusion and anti-racism.[42]

5.38               The Committee recognises that in order to integrate and secure employment in Australia, it is beneficial for migrants to have a command of the English language. The Committee also acknowledges that the key to the success of Australian multiculturalism is inclusiveness.

5.39               Chapter 9: Settlement and Participation, also investigates the issues of English language training and cultural competency.

Recommendation 7
5.40	The Committee recommends that the Social Inclusion Agenda includes a clear definition of social inclusion and in particular how this responds to the needs of a culturally diverse society.

Recommendation 8
5.41	The Committee recommends that further development of the Social Inclusion Agenda be more directly informed by multicultural policy through formal links between the Social Inclusion Board and peak bodies in the area of multiculturalism.

5.42               SCOA acknowledges that the Social Inclusion Agenda is becoming increasingly positive in including multicultural issues, but that it could be more so, particularly if supported by a more complete evidence base:

While Multiculturalism was not well-recognised in social inclusion strategies prior to its first reference early in 2010, recent agitation from civil society organizations to rectify this problem has had some results. However it is evident from the sketchiness of the policy ideas and the limited range of methods and outcome parameters, that the database remains inadequate for enabling the development, implementation, evaluation and bench-marking of social inclusion interventions that are truly inclusive of migrant and refugee communities. Nor are settlement strategies and their impact included in definitions of social inclusion policies, even though SCOA would argue that settlement is at its core a social inclusion activity. Where data exists it is fragmented and not easily accessible.[43]

5.43               The Social Inclusion Board strengthened its human rights focus in its second term with the appointment of Dr Tom Calma, the former Race Discrimination Commissioner and a current board member of Reconciliation Australia.[44] The Board has also agreed to continue to assemble more evidence to ensure its focus is on the work that should be done as well as supporting DIAC, the Human Rights Commissioner and others in their work.[45]

5.44               An urgent need was identified for the better collection and collation of data to inform that process. The issues of research and the collation of data more generally are discussed in Chapter 7.

5.45               The AHRC recognised that whilst the Social Inclusion Board has some very good research available, the issues around ethnicity and gender need to be unpacked:

… so that there is a recognition that an economic lens can also throw up a great range of aspects of identity that need to be looked at in an intersecting way.

… they already commission significant research and publish research. The fundamental point is that they are seeing disadvantage as just being economic and my point is that disadvantage is broader than that. Within economic disadvantage there is some unpacking that you need to do.[46]

5.46               Similarly, the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture mentioned that it is very important to have the right kind of data properly collected at the original point by, for example, the service providers, but that it is not a simple task:[47]

…getting that data collection and analysis right … is incredibly important to the work of those who want to see multiculturalism, integration, participation and social inclusion happen. The Social Inclusion Board is doing a lot of work around indicators and data because it realises how critical they are and how complex it is, and … they are not heavily focused on diversity. They acknowledge it is important. So … what we are talking about is complementing, through the work of the Multicultural Council, the work of the Social Inclusion Board.[48]

5.47               The AHRC also noted that in early 2010 there had been an announcement by the government of a national action plan on social inclusion, as well as a guiding framework to implement social inclusion. The Social Inclusion Unit subsequently informed the Committee that the national action plan did not eventuate but that the measurement and reporting framework was developed as a mechanism to progress the Social Inclusion Agenda:

I think it would be quite important, as that framework is developed, that there is appropriate engagement with different sectors of society to ensure that these issues are properly captured.[49]

5.48               According to the first annual report of the Australian Social Inclusion Board, Social Inclusion in Australia: How Australia is faring:

Development of the Framework involved consulting widely and researching methods of social inclusion measurement, including indicator frameworks used overseas or in other jurisdictions.[50]

5.49               Initially the framework provided a baseline picture of social inclusion in Australia for use to measure Australia’s progress, and it continues to be developed as a framework for action.[51]

5.50               The framework indicators of social inclusion are categorised as headline (high level, longer term), and supplementary (complementary, providing a fuller picture of the domains), with the inclusion of strategic change indicators (showing areas of government policy intervention expected to influence headline indicators) anticipated in the future.[52]

5.51               Headline and supplementary indicators show how Australia is achieving on average at the aggregate level, but it has been recognised that disaggregation of the indicators is also important. For some population groups (especially vulnerable ones), issues are only revealed once the indicators have been disaggregated and examined by social and demographic characteristics. In order to better investigate some of these characteristics, population subgroups are used for analysis and reporting as appropriate.  Of particular relevance to this inquiry is the inclusion of ‘people with a migrant background (recent migrants and humanitarian/refugee entrants)’ as one of the population subgroups.[53]

5.52               The second Social Inclusion in Australia report provides some information on the ‘proportion of people who do not speak English well or at all’, but there is little other discussion of the data in a multicultural context.[54]

Recommendation 9
5.53	The Committee recommends that the Social Inclusion Agenda be modified to explicitly incorporate Culturally and Linguistically Diverse factors as indicators of potential social and economic disadvantage, and that the influence of these factors is adequately considered within the continued development of the measurement and reporting framework for social inclusion in Australia.

Recommendation 10
5.54	The Committee recommends that a strategic research partnership be investigated between the Social Inclusion Board and an independent research institute specialising in multicultural affairs, for the better collection and collation of data to inform the process of ensuring the inclusion of multicultural issues in the Social Inclusion Agenda.