| Abstract: | ![]()
The debate on the consequences of large-scale immigration in the making of public policy began in 1968. Muliculturalism is for all Australians and any social policy designed for the benefit of one group in the population must have profound consequences on all people. 40% of the Australian population was born overseas or have at least 1 parent born overseas. Almost 1/4 of the population has ethnic roots in other than the Anglo-Celtic majority. The ideal of moral progress, greater equality, and improvement is the motive force in society. The presence of social heterogeneity--religious or ethnic--is linked with the issue of stability in a democratic system. There are 2 models of multiculturalism and corresponding public policy approaches. 1 model emphasizes the role of the political processes in Australian ethnic relations and sees ethnic structures (political, social, economic) as legitimate but separate interest groups, each having the exclusive responsibility for the realization of ethnic goals. The leading feature of this model is the structural fragmentation of Australian society into parallel segments of varying degrees of exclusiveness each with its own "ethnic" label. The 2nd model stresses the priority of the wholeness and welfare of the entire society. It assumes that a society based on satisfaction of individual needs through voluntary exchange is fertile ground for cultural enrichment. The goal is cohesion and unity in living together in Australia, seen as of central concern and consistent with the ideals of intercultural understanding and improved communication. The model assumes that the culture must be seen as a living, dynamic, changing, and interacting set of life patterns. The author prefers the 2nd model which stresses that the future vision of a multicultural Australia must be a shared one because only then can cultural diversity and national cohesion coexist within the 1 economic and political unit. |
