Australia is hailed as one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world. In the discourse around multiculturalism, Indigenuity is often positioned as one, homogeneous ethnicity amidst a group of cultural ethnicities who can lay claim to belonging in Australia (Kamp et al, 2018).

There is a prevailing assumption in Australia that Indigenous people are distrustful of multiculturalism. Research has shown however, that the unrest arises in the placing of Indigenuity within the discourse of multiculturalism (Kamp et al, 2018).

In the research, Indigenous Australians have reported that to include Indigenuity in the conversation about multiculturalism in Australia is to reduce them to simply another ethnic group. This then denies the different experiences and status of Indigenous Australians as the original inhabitants of this country. It also denies the history of genocide and dispossession of their people and the matter that Indigenous sovereignty was never ceded (Van den Berg, 2002).

The research also argues that in reducing Indigenous Australians to a single ethnic group within the cultural diversity of immigrant ethnic groups strengthens the notions of the Anglo settler society as the dominant, superior citizens of Australia (Kamp et al, 2018).

When speaking about multiculturalism in Australia it is important to remember that multiculturalism was prevalent here before the arrival of Captain Cook.

Broadly speaking, Indigenous Australians are described as two distinct cultural groups – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. There is, however, over 300 different language groups under this umbrella term as exemplified in the map above. Along with their unique languages, many of these groups hold distinct cultural customs, knowledge systems and their own, particular connection to country.

The shared experience that Indigenous Australians and the immigrant groups do have, however, is the experience of experiencing racism.

This is apparent in all dimensions of social justice. In the political and cultural dimension, immigrant groups and Indigenous Australians are not equally represented on the political stage or in mainstream media. In the social dimension, these groups of people are often socially excluded. In the economic dimension. redistribution is sorely lacking as is evidenced by the huge difference in health outcomes.

So, while Australia is celebrated as a successful multicultural nation, what has happened to the myriad of cultures of the First Peoples of Australia in the process?

References:

Kamp, A, Dunn, K, Paradies, Y & Blair, K 2018, ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s attitudes towards Australian multiculturalism, cultural diversity, “race” and racism, 2015-16’, Australian Aboriginal Studies, no. 2, pp. 50–70

Van den Berg, Rosemary.  2002,  Nyoongar people of Australia : perspectives on racism and multiculturalism / by Rosemary Van den Berg Brill Leiden ; Boston

When looking at social justice in Australia through the lens of immigration and multiculturalism, it is easy, if not inevitable, to get disheartened. Through all spheres of social justice, cultural, social, political and economical it seems that Australia is not fulfilling it’s moral and humane obligation to refugees and asylum seekers.

There are, however, some examples of immigration policy in Australia to be proud of. This blog will focus on Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s reaction to the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

In June 1989, following months of protesting and hunger strikes, the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army, containing over 200,000 soldiers, opened fire on the unarmed civilian in Tiananmen Square. Some reports state that over 10,000 people were killed, however exact numbers are not known as discourse in any media, classroom or internet is banned in China.

Australia’s Prime Minister at the time was Bob Hawke. In a famous speech in response to the massacre, he tearfully offered humanitarian visas to all Chinese students living in Australia, later their families were also accepted.

Years later, cabinet papers showed that he offered these visas without consulting his cabinet. In 2015, he revealed to the Guardian

“When I walked off the dais, I was told: ‘You cannot do that, prime minister.’ I said to them, ‘I just did. It is done.’

After Bob Hawke’s recent passing on 16 May, many Chinese-Australian peoples have testified about what his empathy and actions meant to them and families.

The social dimension of social justice was achieved by social inclusion and the sense of belonging that has continued to be fostered among the Chinese-Australian communities.

In today’s political climate, it is hard to imagine how any actions like this could be possible.

It is, however, a reminder of a time when Australia’s immigration was empathetic and hopefully, (naively?) may be inspiration for future policy makers.

References:

Couchman, S & Bagnall, K 2015, Chinese Australians : politics, engagement and resistance / edited by Sophie Couchman and Kate Bagnall, Brill

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-18/bob-hawke-tiananmen-square-apartheid-foriegn-policy/11124650

A federal election is to take place on 18 May 2019. Immigration Policy is set to feature significantly in the election, as it has in every election since the foundation of the Commonwealth when the ‘White Australia Policy’ was passed as one of the first laws in 1901. In recent years, the 2001 election was a turning point in using immigration policy to win votes.

2001 Federal Election – The Children Overboard Affair

In October, 2001 the Howard Government used a tragic incident of a boat of asylum seekers in trouble to swing votes in their favour.

This was an abhorrent ploy to win an election that polls suggested he was set to lose. It followed on from the Tampa Crisis  a few months previously, which led to the change in policy that still forms the basis of how Australia treats asylum seekers attempting to arrive here by boat.

On October 7, the HMAS Adelaide came upon a fishing boat in trouble weighed down with desperate asylum seekers north of Christmas Island. Due to the change in policy, the Navy boat was ordered to keep all asylum seekers out of  Australian waters rather than bring them to safety. The HMAS Adelaide fired a warning shot to do so.  Frightened by this, some people jumped into the water while those with children held them aloft to alert the Navy that there were children on board. One parent held a child over the side in order for them to defecate. All passengers soon fell into the sea when the fishing boat fell apart.

Based on a confused, unconfirmed Navy report that day, the then Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock declared;

“A number of  children have been thrown overboard, again with the intention of putting us under duress”

The next day, after being sent the official, confirmed report from the Navy – that did not make any suggestion that children were thrown overboard, Prime Minister John Howard continued to claim that children were thrown overboard, using the incident to strengthen his persona as a ‘tough but fair’ Prime Minister while vilifying refugees, explaining;

“We are a humane nation, but we’re not a nation that’s going to be intimidated by this kind of behaviour”

John Howard’s Coalition went on to win the election in November with an increased majority that polls show was down to their strong border protection policies.

An Australian Senate Select Committee later found that there was no evidence of children being thrown overboard and the Liberal Party knew this prior to making their statements. The Committee condemned the Party for “(exploiting) voters’ fears of a wave of illegal immigrants by demonising asylum-seekers” in order to win the election.

The Howard Government’s immigration policy became known as The Pacific Solution.  Boat arrivals were either turned back, processed on Christmas Island and kept in onshore detention centres or sent to the newly opened processing centres on Manus and Nauru Island.

2018 Upcoming Federal Election

There has been widespread condemnation from international human rights groups of the immigration policy of keeping asylum seekers indefinitely on the Manus and Nauru processing centres. Health professionals, journalists, human rights lawyers and children’s advocacy groups who have visited the detention centres all agree that the refugee’s detention is unlawful and detrimental to their physical and mental health.

Despite this, both major parties’ immigration policies for the upcoming election declare that those refugees in the detention centres will never be brought to Australia.

References:

‘Amplifying outrage over children overboard [Paper in: Governance. Eddy, Elizabeth (ed).]’ 2006, Social Alternatives, no. 2, p. 59

‘The Asphyxia of the Image: Terror, Surveillance and the Children Overboard Affair’ 2006, Arena Journal, no. 27, p. 81