The ‘m’ word is still a contentious one for some, that’s for sure. With seven syllables ‘multiculturalism’ was never going to trip off the tongue as a vital, easily understood political platform, in the same way that ‘health’ ‘education’ and ’employment’ do.
With Victorian Multicultural Minister Nick Kotsiras’ most recently reported comments emblazoned across the cover of Tuesday’s Herald Sun newspaper, followed by a six-column editorial the next day, the Fairfax title obviously felt the subject was of such import that it required a sizable response. The commentary of the Herald Sun was as revealing, if not more so, than the minister’s latest reflections on nationality and social cohesion. What others might latch-on to as benign reflections on generating a feeling of national inclusivity, the story became a canvas for ideas that have at their root, a strong resentment to, and distrust of, the term ‘multiculturalism’ and its place in the Victorian and Australian political landscape.
On his way to Question Time in the Victorian Parliament, I took the opportunity to talk to Nicholas Kotsiras about the origins of his metaphor of ‘Team Australia’, and his comment on the benefits of a national anthem sung by all.
“Football teams have players with different skills, different heights. What I was saying with Team Australia, is that while we have our own unique identity, our aim is to play together, to assist each other, and in doing so, to score.” Mr Kotsiras says the idea of the analogy came through his visits to schools, where typically in his experience, between 5 and 30 per cent of students, when asked to raise their hands if they were Australian, felt unable to do so. It obviously struck a chord, if not an alarm bell, in the minister’s mind.
“I don’t want any child to feel they are an outsider. That’s my fear. Every child should feel part of the community, part of Victoria, part of Australia. “I don’t think of myself as an add-on,” says the minister whose own cultural heritage underpins his political agenda. “We are Australia, all of us.”
Perhaps it is the idealism that confounds Nicholas Kotisiras’ detractors the most. His critics are clearly those uncomfortable with the notion of government intervening in the sensitive and entwined subjects of cultural and national identity: interventions that some feel, need not, and should not, be the concern of politicians and governments. The minister’s oft-quoted comment last week as to the benefits of all schoolchildren in Victoria singing the national anthem isn’t quite what it appears, he says.
“The anthem is not going to be the answer, but I’d love to see every school sing the national anthem because the students get a sense of belonging. I know I did when I was at school.” As chair of the government’s Language Education and Mutlicutural Education committee, which reports to Education Minister Andrew Dixon, Kotsiras says the Team Australia concept is an extension of work being undertaken across the board by the Baillieu government on schools education.
“We’re looking to ensure every child learns a second language from prep to year 10, and another part of this is to see what resources are available in terms of civic education.
“My comment on the anthem was one small ingredient. We’re involved in upgrading civic education, which is all about rights and responsibilities. We’re reviewing the resources that are available to teachers, making sure they are relevant and up to date, and that they are meeting targets and outcomes, in terms of every child putting up their hand.”
Nicholas Kotsiras’ summing-up of his multicultural political odyssey is disarmingly simple: “We start from a base which says we value our diversity and our differences, the next question is how do we utilise that to move forward, to create an inclusive and united society.” In the national press the minister surfaced again last week, in a story in The Australian on the Victorian government’s submission to federal parliament’s enquiry into multiculturalism. It’s no secret that the Victorian minister’s ambitions, include the federal government adopting a similar Multicultural Act to that which exists in Victoria. What can be transferred to the national picture from Victoria?
“Cohesion and unity. Peace and harmony,” responds the minister, who says that in his dealings with other states Victoria is applauded for the lead that it has shown in defining the multicultural agenda in state politics and legislation. “Look at what other states have experienced over the years, and what we in Victoria have experienced, in terms of people feeling part of the community.”
In The Australian, former federal minister Dr Gary Johns, (a member the Keating government that spearheaded the national multicultural agenda), said that a federal ‘multicultural act’ could lead to ‘unintended consequences’, including new rights that could ultimately be a divisive force and limit free speech.
Dr Johns argued that “legislating for multiculturalism is to introduce the potential for different rules,” and that cultural laws in themselves were no aid to social harmony. Nick Kotsiras believes such concerns are unfounded.
“I would encourage Dr Johns to read our Multicultural Act. It simply recognises the culturally, religiously, racially and linguistically diverse people of Victoria, that’s all it does. There’s nothing in it that gives anyone special privileges. It’s a definition of who we are and our rights and responsibilities.
“Our legislation has achieved the outcome of uniting individuals and groups, while at the same time encouraging people to be proud to showcase their differences. That’s what our legislation does.” Team Australia may well sing the national anthem before the game begins, but the political football that is ‘multiculturalism’ will be kicked around a while yet before there’s universal agreement on how its principles can best be sewn into the fabric of Australian society.