Weighed down by the M-word

Despite big problems with multiculturalism neither side of politics is willing to ditch it

SUDDENLY Julia Gillard is on the warpath over multiculturalism; after much equivocation as Prime Minister she has decided to resurrect it as a political concept and demands Tony Abbott sack Scott Morrison and Cory Bernardi for their comments about anti-Islamic sentiment.

Gillard's attack is winning dividends. It makes the Coalition the issue. It alleges Abbott is a leader without moral courage. Its real aim is to ruin Abbott's leadership. And the debacle is the Liberal Party's own achievement.

The Liberal woes coincide with the revival of the idea of multiculturalism by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen in his speech to the Sydney Institute last week. You may think Bowen was seeking to exploit the gaffe by shadow minister Morrison. But this is wrong.

The policy Bowen outlined had been cleared through cabinet, authorised by Gillard and was delivered before Bowen read the leaked account of Morrison's shadow cabinet remarks.

This event testifies to Bowen's personal beliefs and his origins in Fairfield in Sydney's west, attending a school drawn from more than 100 nationalities. His aim is to affirm Labor's heritage of support for multiculturalism and, make no mistake, the shift from campaign 2010 is sharp.

In the campaign Gillard took a tough line on boat arrivals, defined her leadership with a poll-driven rejection of a big Australia and invoked nostalgia for "an Australian way of life" typified by "clean beaches and precious open spaces" exploiting alarm over urban pressures and high immigration. Post-election, former NSW Labor premier, Morris Iemma, nailed one of Labor's problems: "We abandoned multicultural Australia and they abandoned us," Iemma said.

This view is widely accepted by Labor given its fallen vote in heavily migrant Sydney seats. Indeed, Gillard's cynical attack on big Australia at a time of acute labour shortages is rarely heard these days.

Bowen started writing his speech, titled "The Genius of Multiculturalism", in January and, more recently, wanted to answer the critiques of multiculturalism by German leader Angela Merkel and Britain's David Cameron.

"I'm not afraid to use the word multiculturalism, " Bowen said. Yet many senior ALP figures were no longer promoting the term. While Bowen outlined what he called "a new multicultural policy" the significance of his speech is not policy detail but philosophy.

Bowen announced a change of title for Kate Lundy, who becomes parliamentary secretary "for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs".

In January 2007, the Howard government removed multicultural from the title of the immigration portfolio. In September 2010 the Gillard government went further and dropped it from the parliamentary secretary's title. Bowen and Gillard have corrected this step. Note, however, that multicultural has been restored to Lundy's title, not Bowen's. He remains Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, surely the appropriate title. So multiculturalism is returning, but doesn't get top billing.

The truth is that multiculturalism as a political concept has not been embraced by the Australian public. One of the best explanations for such failure comes from social researcher Hugh Mackay, a champion of diversity. "The word itself is still a problem and I think it was not smart to resurrect it," Mackay says. "This word has got a lot of baggage. The 'ism' gives the impression it is something being imposed. Australians are ready to celebrate the diversity of our culture, from sport to religion. They see our society as pluralistic and like it. But once you try to make this official you leave the impression it is being imposed from above and people get very suspicious. Politicians would be better off using neutral words like diverse or pluralistic that don't focus on race, ethnicity or religion. People like the word cosmopolitan because it implies a richness in our diversity."

Australians distrust social engineering, being told what to think and feel. Multiculturalism has this connotation. In his excellent speech Bowen tried to dispel the doubts. For Bowen, there is a unique Australian multiculturalism, different from other nations. It has three elements and begins with a "first loyalty" to Australia. People must accept our Constitution, rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language and sexual equality. In any conflict between ethnic culture and Australian values "then these traditional Australian values win out". Second, Bowen argues that "ours is a citizenship-based multiculturalism". We welcome people as full partners on the basis of citizenship. Third, multiculturalism is bipartisan.

It seems startling, however, that Bowen endorses Cameron's position in his attack on "the doctrine of state multiculturalism".

What, pray, did Cameron say? He warned Britain had blundered by encouraging "different cultures to live separate lives". Cameron said Britain had failed to confront extremist Islamist ideology, preachers of hate and forced marriages. It had failed to recognise that British-raised terrorists were initially influenced by non-violent Islamist extremists.

He demanded that extremist ideology be confronted "in all its forms" and aspired "to build stronger societies and stronger identities". This needed a "muscular liberalism".

Bowen's argument is that Cameron was advocating the "Australian version of multiculturalism". Indeed, Bowen's core argument is that multiculturalism in Australia, unlike Britain, has led to a stronger society. There is no question Bowen is correct in saying that multiculturalism in Australia is different and more successful than in Britain.

The bigger point, however, is that the public remains confused. It must be confused if multiculturalism means different things in different nations and if Cameron's attack on multiculturalism equates with Australia's own version of multiculturalism. After 30 years the concept is still contested yet nobody seems able to find a replacement. John Howard loathed the term but never devised an alternative and settled instead for "Australian multiculturalism".

The problem is the gulf between the word and its political meaning. Multicultural means many cultures, yet no Australian PM would support this exclusive interpretation because it cannot sustain a nation and Bowen's entire argument is that the policy actually means the opposite, a stronger and united Australia.

The task for Australia is to achieve unity in diversity. The problem with multiculturalism is obvious: the right wing believes it undermines unity and the left-wing hijacks the concept to promote separate ethnic cultures. Nothing is likely to change. But Bowen's definition is correct, so he should be wished good luck in our latest effort to fly with this flawed terminology.