Address to the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) Inc

Speech

Transcript - Canberra - 5 December 2002

Check Against Delivery

Introduction

I welcome the opportunity to address an important national conference of such breadth and to share with you my perspectives regarding citizenship and multicultural affairs.

Representing a particularly culturally diverse Western Sydney electorate with a high recent settlement rate, and with my background of committee activity on immigration and human rights issues, I was delighted that Simon Crean appointed me to this Shadow Portfolio after the last election. Since then I have set about progressively visiting communities across Australia to listen to their concerns. I have endeavoured to make particular contact with the FECCA network, relevant State and Territory Ministers and agencies, Migrant Resource Centres, and ethno-specific organisations. I have also attended countless community functions on behalf of the Opposition.

Labor's comprehensive policy review is still under way. I thus intend this morning to offer my perspective on current policy challenges, rather than hard and fast policy positions. I have received much valuable feedback and input and I look forward to continuing to work with you as our policy development continues.

FECCA role

FECCA has a unique role to play in public policy regarding ethnic communities. It alone has the potential to grapple with a wide range of programs across Commonwealth portfolios. It can go beyond single issue concerns, with refugee policy for example; beyond the interests of particular ethnic, religious or language groups; and beyond the views of individual States, Territories and regions. I acknowledge the importance of that capability.

Equally FECCA has a community base not enjoyed by academic or other commentators. This provides it with direct feedback from State and regional Councils that are themselves community controlled. This structure should best operate as both a driving force and an important constraint. FECCA must be seen to represent Australia's ethnic community organisations, in all their diversity, in substance as well as in legal form.

FECCA is also largely taxpayer funded, because the development and implementation of public policy on population, immigration, citizenship and multicultural affairs is enhanced by informed and professional input from the community based sector. This is reflective of a fairly uniquely Australian approach to the funding of social policy umbrella groups at both national and State levels.

There are inherent tensions in this situation. As ACOSS can attest, speaking out against constant tax cuts, criticising ill-conceived programs and advocating a crackdown on taxation and business welfare rorts is not exactly a recipe for universal popularity. Some in the political system will be tempted to try to shoot the messenger, as we have seen with some other umbrella groups.

Equally peak organisations must demonstrate that they are properly structured, are stable and well managed, add value to policy debates and are not driven by purely personal or political agendas. I know FECCA has been prepared to admit to shortfalls in performance in some of these areas in recent years. It's Executive and new staff appear committed to an agenda of reform and renewal and I hope that this conference can materially assist in this process.

Citizenship

I turn to citizenship policy. Developments in this area over the years have been the most obvious manifestation of our evolving approach to both national identity and immigration.

Until 1949 distinct Australian citizenship did not actually exist in law. People living here were either British subjects or aliens; with our indigenous population basically left in a disgraceful no man's land. Naturalisation was only available to those who met the requirements of the White Australia Policy.

Australian citizenship was introduced by the Chifley Labor Government, and commenced on January 26 1949. By asking newcomers to pledge allegiance to Australia, it provided the conceptual foundation upon which the acceptance of cultural diversity could much later be built.

While aspects of the White Australia Policy were eased beforehand, it was not finally buried until the election of the Whitlam Government, 30 years ago this week. The immigration reforms of that Government included:

• Assisted passage was given to non-Europeans, and visa requirements for non-European visitors were eased,
• Rules granting British people preferential access to citizenship and visas were abolished,
• The requirement that indigenous Australians needed special permission to leave the country was removed, and
• Aliens were no longer required to advise the Government every year of their address, occupation and marital status.

In the 1980s and 1990s Labor made further changes regarding the voting rights of future British migrants and replaced the Oath of Allegiance with a Pledge of Commitment to Australia. Finally earlier this year we were pleased to support changes to the law so that Australians taking out citizenship of another country no longer automatically lose their Australian citizenship.

These were all important changes to our laws and customs, and to our sense of national identity. By international standards we now have a citizenship system that is welcoming to newcomers. Unlike European nations we do not put onerous language or residence requirements as barriers to obtaining citizenship. We have an inclusive approach to citizenship that can act as a unifying force for a population from diverse ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. As I emphasise at citizenship ceremonies our system of compulsory electoral enrolment and voting, in place since the 1920s, also spells out our determination to encourage political participation by the entire community.

I recognise that there is still much unfinished business on the citizenship front. We have far too many permanent residents who have not taken out citizenship, particularly from the UK and New Zealand. We need to encourage them to take a further step on the road to becoming Australian.

Equally we have overseas Australians of whatever background who lost their citizenship for reasons that no longer apply. The biggest group is those who took out another citizenship for career, business or other compelling reasons and were thus deprived of Australian citizenship. While this no longer occurs, the resumption requirements are outdated and in need of reform. There is also the complicated position of those Maltese Australians who were forced to renounce their Australia citizenship as teenagers due to now repealed Maltese laws.

I have indicated a willingness to work with organisations like the Southern Cross Group, which advocates on behalf of overseas Australians, to try to rectify these anomalies.

Access and equity

I turn now to the operation of the Government's access and equity agenda, which I know is understandably of particular concern to many in the FECCA network.

The Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society sets out the Government's approach to the issue. While the Charter has received Government endorsement, it has not been enacted into law. There is no real sanction for non-compliance by agencies, and the nature of the reports to Parliament make it extremely difficult to determine the true extent of compliance. The reports, prepared by DIMIA, contain next to no empirical information, so it is difficult to track developments over time, be they positive or adverse.

The Government increasingly argues that after an initial settlement period ethnic communities are best assisted by mainstream services in areas such as aged care, labour market programs and so on. This is a matter for considerable debate. But if you accept such an argument the flip side must surely be that mainstream service providers have obligations that must be monitored, and unmet needs must be identified and responded to.

This does not appear to be the case at present. Instead feedback suggests that some Commonwealth agencies and Ministers do not take the Charter requirements seriously. One Departmental Secretary, in a key social policy portfolio, recently told FECCA that she was too busy to be interviewed about access and equity matters in her Department. Clearly this is not good enough.

Labor has a strong record on access and equity issues, as part of our wider commitment to social justice. I am happy to explore with the FECCA network a policy agenda that involves cooperative work with other Shadow Ministers. This has already happened to some extent in the areas of social security and broadcasting. As our policy review proceeds this will increase.

I am also worried about the extent to which the Commonwealth public service is representative of the multicultural community that it serves. Portfolio responsibility for this rests with the Public Service Commission.

The recent Workplace Diversity Report 2001-02 is far from reassuring. While noting continuing concerns about the accuracy of agency data, it reveals that the proportion of staff that identified as being from a non-English speaking background fell to 9.6%. In June 1993 this figure was 10.7%. Equally NESB recruitment and promotion rates were lower than their overall representation, suggesting that the public service is likely to become even less culturally diverse over time.

A number of large and influential agencies stand out as having a quite small proportion of reported NESB staff. These include Attorney General's (1.9%), Education Science & Training (3.5%), Communications Information Technology & the Arts (5.1%), and Prime Minister & Cabinet (5.4%).

Threats to community harmony

There is no doubt that a key challenge at the moment is for community leaders to work together to foster community harmony and to combat extremism.

Clearly we are seeing a combination of threats to harmony and tolerance, hardened by recent international events compounding long established attitudes amongst significant sections of the population. All of this is happening in the context of broader fears and anxieties created by wider economic, social and industrial trends, and the erosion of the certainties of earlier periods.

The Government is at pains to convey a targeted message to ethnic community organisations that it is strongly committed to multiculturalism. It says so in its 1999 policy statement A New Agenda for Multicultural Australia, notwithstanding its earlier trenchant criticisms of Labor's support for the concept.

However the Prime Minister is profoundly equivocal about responding to expressions of prejudice, and is stubbornly unwilling to say sorry for the impact of earlier Government policies on our indigenous community. I do not suggest for a moment that he is motivated by personal prejudice or emotion in this; I fear it is more a question of calm political calculation.

Consider Mr Howard's reaction to two of our more infamous political outbursts on ethnic and religious tolerance. First there was Pauline Hanson's absurd claim in her maiden speech of 10 September 96 that Australia was "in danger of being swamped by Asians". Then there was Fred Nile's demand last month that Muslim women should be banned from wearing in public what for some of them is their traditional religious attire. On each occasion Mr Howard failed to provide the strong leadership he boasts of in other fields, and instead resorted to weak equivocation.

Regarding Pauline Hanson he initially suggested that the expression of ill-informed and prejudiced views was actually positive evidence of political maturity that was far preferable to political correctness. He told the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party on 22 September 1996 that (quote):

"One of the great changes that have come over Australia in the last six months is that people do feel able to speak a little more freely and a little more openly about how they feel. In a sense the pall of censorship on certain issues has been lifted."

Similarly two weeks ago his first response to Fred Nile on commercial radio was pitiful (quote):

"I don't have a clear response to what Fred has put. I mean I like Fred and I don't always agree with him but you know Fred speaks for the views of a lot of people."

Living in Harmony

Certainly I do not suggest that the Government has completely ignored the issue of ethnic and religious prejudice. It has indeed invested significant amounts of funding in the Living in Harmony program, which I would like to talk about in some detail.

Living in Harmony is actually the final manifestation of a $10 million anti-racism campaign that the Coalition promised during the 1996 election campaign. It had a protracted birth as the Cabinet agonised over the exact form it should take. It finally commenced in August 1998, with 3 main elements:

• A community grants program,
• Harmony Day on March 21, and
• A partnership program with business on productive diversity.

While the program was a response to concerns about racism, that term is downplayed in its publicity material. Instead the message is that no matter where we come from, or what our beliefs are, we are all Australian. That is what its slogan "You + Me = aUStralian" is all about; celebrating the achievements of multiculturalism. As far as it goes this is praiseworthy, but it is only part of the picture.

Publicity material for Living in Harmony makes no explicit reference to laws that outlaw racial and religious discrimination; nor does it offer any advice about avenues of redress for individuals who experience such discrimination. It fails to generate substantial debate about community relations or to attempt to inoculate the public against racism and religious prejudice. Nevertheless I acknowledge that some individual Living in Harmony projects, like the Racism No Way! material for schools, have done so. Other funded projects promoting cultural diversity in sporting associations and a fairer deal for indigenous Australians in rural areas are equally of great potential.

Other concerns are that Living in Harmony does not have an inbuilt research agenda; that there is insufficient follow through of funded projects that could have wider application; that there are inadequate lead times and a lack of real community input into the preparations for Harmony Day; and that no ongoing dialogue appears to exist with the States and Territories, or with other relevant Commonwealth agencies such as ATSIC and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.

I am keen to continue a dialogue about how Living in Harmony could be improved upon by a Labor Government. I have been looking other Western countries, and State and Territory Governments. Some run explicit advertising campaigns, which tend to be very expensive. Canada concentrates more on generating community debate about an agreed anti-racism agenda. They co-sponsor symposia on topical issues, have an explicit research agenda and draw attention to particular themes, like racism in sport or in parts of the media.

Settlement services

I turn now to the key question of settlement services.

Over recent decades Australia has benefited from having a comprehensive menu of settlement assistance for migrants and refugees that was not equalled in any other country. Such assistance profits both individual settlers and the wider community. The settlement system inherited by the current Government was the culmination of earlier initiatives from both sides of politics, and was influenced by major reviews, conducted independently of the Department.

Since 1996 we have seen a change in approach. Key programs like the Adult Migrant Education Program and the IHSS for refugees have shifted to a contracting model, along private sector business lines. The Auditor General subsequently found that for AMEP consumer choice had not improved but the cost to the taxpayer had increased. The Government is of course currently finalising a further 5-year tender process for the AMEP, worth more than $500 million. To date this approach has only served to reduce the opportunity for community input, work against cooperative planning between service providers and, to the extent that we are told that certain things are commercial in confidence, reduce the level of Parliamentary scrutiny.

Equally wherever I go I hear service providers complain about the difficulties associated with the IHSS, particularly given the way it was introduced. People have little understanding as to why particular tender decisions were made. We now find that combined accommodation support contracts are being re-tendered on a State basis even where the multiplicity of existing accommodation contracts are not about to expire. In addition many valued, dedicated volunteers have clearly voted with their feet and stopped participating in the program.

Parallel with this tendering model we have seen reduced entitlements associated with the introduction of the Temporary Protection System. Only a minority of refugee and humanitarian arrivals are now eligible for full assistance from the IHSS. This is because TPVs are ineligible and humanitarian arrivals sponsored by family have extremely limited entitlements. TPVs are of course also not supposed to be helped by Migrant Resource Centres, by the AMEP or by migrant welfare agencies funded under the CSSS scheme.

The TPV issue is the question that is most frequently raised with me by organisations across Australia. There is concern that they are becoming a highly visible, marginalised underclass, insecure about their future, provided with little assistance to settle and open to exploitation by unscrupulous employers.

I have no sympathy for the activities of people smugglers, or for those who would want to abuse our refugee system. But when people's claims have been processed and they are released from detention, I do not see what we gain by denying them access to English language classes or proper assistance from the Job Network. These are precisely the forms of assistance they most need to get a decent job on award wages and become less dependant on the taxpayer.

I am pleased that Labor's policy on asylum seekers addresses these concerns. We will allow all refugees to access English language training and the Job Network. Equally we will abolish the system of keeping TPVs in permanent limbo. As their temporary visas expire they will be reassessed and those found to be in continuing need of protection will be given a permanent visa and associated family reunion rights.

We await with great interest the outcome of the Government's own review of settlement services, as well as the IHSS evaluation that is being conducted separately. To the extent that these processes produce improved service delivery arrangements, better planning and consultation processes, improved integration across programs, and the development of genuine partnerships with the States and Territories, Labor will welcome them.

The fear is that we will instead see a further contraction of entitlements, by pitting established communities against new arrivals for example, as well as greater reliance on competitive tendering, and the preferencing of traditional charities and church-based agencies compared to community based ethnic organisations. These would be retrograde steps.

Conclusion

Once again I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important conference, and to share my thoughts on current challenges. I welcome the feedback and input that I have received to date and acknowledge FECCA's efforts to modernise its method of operation and improve its channels of communication with all sides of the Parliament.

I look forward to continuing to work with you in the months ahead as we proceed with Labor's policy review.