Australia and its 'others': Multicultural theory, policy and practice

Sharlene Nipperess and Charlotte Williams

Introduction

Australian multiculturalism is heralded as a success story. The 2016 Census has flagged Australia as officially the most multicultural nation on earth, with over half of the population born overseas or with a parent born overseas (ABS 2017). The Census reveals a complex cultural and linguistic diversity made up of over 180 different nationality groups, over 200 languages spoken and a strong foundational Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander presence. This unique combination and the broad spectrum of the population diversity mark Australia out from countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, which are characterised by more substantive clusters of racial and ethnic minority groups. This multicultural melee has become a core element of the narrative of national identity; indeed, as the backlash against multiculturalism rages in Europe, Australia is experiencing a process of re multiculturalism (Koleth 2010). Political debate and policy documents celebrate Australia's growing diversity and it is presented as a confident feature of the national portrait.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Australians are willing to embrace a greater level of cultural diversity in their everyday lives than many other comparable nations (Brett & Moran 2011; Markus 2017). Australia wants migrants: they are critical to the economy — particularly those who are highly skilled or seeking education and training for the skilled sector. Immigration of this kind is unlikely to abate. In addition, Australia recognises its humanitarian obligations and planned to make available 18,750 places to refugees and people seeking asylum in 2018–19, a slight increase from the 17,555 places provided in 2015–16 (DHA 2017, 2018). Diversity also grows from within, through intermarriage, family reunification, the assertion of new identities and acquisition of legal status. The Commonwealth and state governments are responding to this diversity, developing multicultural policy frameworks aimed to address equitable access and service responsiveness, address issues of racism and discrimination, and enhance cohesion. As global migration increases in scale and complexity, the call is out for a sophisticated multicultural literacy that moves beyond the celebratory aspects of multiculturalism to rise to the challenge of critically engaging with the policy framework at the same time as finding ways to respond innovatively to the increasingly complex nature of contemporary diversity.

The responsibilities of social workers with regard to responding to ethnic diversity have for some time been acknowledged in the Australian Association of Social Work's (AASW) Code of Ethics (2010), in the Practice Standards (2013) and in the Australian Social Work Education Accreditation Standards (2012). The current accreditation standards, for example, commit social work to 'address the barriers, inequities and injustices that exist in society' (2012: 7) and to 'promote respect for traditions, cultures, ideologies, beliefs and religions among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and different ethnic groups and societies' (2012: 7) as part of an enduring core value of a commitment to human rights and social justice for all. Culture, identity and discrimination (AASW 2012) are considered core dimensions for knowledge and skill development. Despite this ethical mandate, as yet we know little empirically about the actual practices of multiculturalism in professional arenas; nor do we know much about the implementation of policies aimed at responding to needs in various ethnic minority communities or how these communities perceive and engage with social work. What we do know is that a perceptible gap exists between intention and impact, creating disadvantage from many minority ethnic groups (AHRC 2012).

Multiculturalism is a concept that is easily acknowledged yet it remains deeply contested. Within social work, it has been interpreted with a variety of meanings, variously used as a demographic descriptor, an imperative, an ideology or simply to describe everyday life (Sundar & Ly 2013). As a concept, it has driven the development of a plethora of approaches: cultural awareness (Green 1995), cultural diversity (Thyer 2010), cultural competency (Laird 2008), cultural safety (Lenette 2014) and cross-cultural and intercultural working (Ling, Martin & Ow 2013), to name a few and not without critique (Pon 2009). These approaches, however, are too often discussed in ways that are somewhat divorced from the political context in which they are enacted, and they too often ignore changes in the policy context that inform them as if they are somehow universal and immutable techniques that are applicable everywhere. They defy the 'contextuality' and 'temporality' of their interpretation in specific places and at specific times (Phillips 2010). As a profession, we have been guilty of this decontextualising, of liberating these concepts from their socio-political mainsprings and assuming them as part of the professional apparatus — as a set of skills to be learned and accomplished. Thus, while a burgeoning literature exists about the associated concepts of cross-cultural working in the Australian context, admonitions about the paucity of writing and research first noted by McMahon (2002) persist, with few...