# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'What was before Lord Vestey born and I born? It was blackfella country.' Vincent Lingiari (Wattie Creek 1966)

Australia's First Peoples have been living on the Australian continent for millenia.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia is made up of many different and distinct groups, each with their own culture, customs, language and laws. They are the world's oldest surviving culture; cultures that continue to be expressed in dynamic and contemporary ways.

The AIATSIS map serves as a visual reminder of the richness and diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia. It was created in 1996 as part of the Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia project and attempts to show language, social or nation groups based on published sources available up to 1994.

The map shows only the general locations of larger groups of people which may include smaller groups. There are also variations in the way that some language or group names are spelt. You can view some of these alternate spellings on the list of alternate spellings for names on the AIATSIS map of Indigenous Australia below.

Note that the borders between groups are purposefully represented as slightly blurred and are not meant to be exact. Some of the information shown on the map is contested and may not be agreed to by some traditional custodians - the map isn't suitable for native title or other land claims.

The map isn't the only source of information; if you would like more information about Australian Indigenous languages please see our Austlang database. The National Native Title Tribunal also produces maps that show native title claims determinations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The AIATSIS map serves as a visual reminder of the richness and diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Home Languages Place Names About Teacher's Notes

# data[].attributes.body
Sea-farers from Sulawesi (Makassar)
Yolngu people travelled to Makassar, Singapore and Phillipines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's long been thought that Indigenous interactions with Europeans officially began after white settlement. But the Yolngu people of the Northern Territory say they were trading with Indonesians for hundreds of years before that.

What we do know is that Aboriginal people from the north coast of Australia were travelling to the far reaches of South-East Asia long before white settlers ever arrived Down Under.

This story is part of Curious Darwin, our new series where you ask us the questions, you vote for your favourite, and we investigate. You can submit your question or vote on our next topic here.
Warning: This article contains images of deceased Indigenous Australians
Question-asker Kathryn, a 27-year-old accountant from Sydney, asked us whether Asian groups met or traded with Aboriginal groups on the northern coast of the NT.

Her question was sparked by curiosity about whether history at school told the full story about first contact.

"In school I always learnt the first people who came to Australia were the Dutch or Captain Cook, and I thought we're never really looking at maybe other groups that the Aboriginal people were contacting," she said.

So who were they in contact with? The answer isn't straightforward.

The exact dates of contact with outsiders have long been the subject of dispute, with Aboriginal oral history saying trading began hundreds of years before Captain Cook arrived, and historians debating over more recent dates.

Historical evidence shows the Dutch East India Company discovered the north coast of Australia in 1606, but the Dutch did not believe there was anything of value in Australia, so no trade occurred.

Seafarers from Sulawesi in Indonesia, known as Makassans, had reached northern Australia by at leastthe 18th century, beginning about 200 years of international trade.

The Makassans, however, discovered the Top End was bountiful in trepang - or sea cucumber - which could be harvested and sold amid a booming trade in China.

What is certain is that Yolngu people from Arnhem Land travelled to Makassar and beyond - to other countries such as Singapore and the Philippines - aboard Makassan boats.

In Sulawesi, Yolgnu people lived among the local people, forged relationships, learned the language, and had families.

The discovery of trepang started a special relationship between the two cultures that's still present today.

We asked you to leave your thoughts on the history of international trade and Indigenous interactions in the comments.

First contact

Trade and contact with the Makassans was happening for hundreds of years, well before the British arrived, says Gathapura Mununggurr, a senior ranger from Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation in Yirrkala, in north-east Arnhem Land.

"That history, and the trade to Yolngu people and history of life during that time is still there," Mr Mununggurr said.

"And people dance, people sing about them, and it's very important in these days for Yolngu people to remember them - that they came, and they were the first contact for Yolngu people.

"[It] all started before white people came, and continued afterwards as well."

The Makassans came to the NT islands and coast in search of trepang, turtle shells, and pearl shells, which they sold in China.

Tobacco, alcohol, calico, fabrics, rice, and knives were among the items introduced to Arnhem Land through the trading partnership.

During that time, language between the cultures evolved to include hundreds of shared words, such as rupiah (money) and balanda (white man).

Linguist and academic Michael Cooke says first contact was made prior to European settlement, a view which is in line with Yolngu storytelling.

"It was definitely before European settlement, but it's not known exactly how long; 300 years is a good guess," Dr Cooke says.

But not everyone agrees.

Historians at odds

"This is the sort of thing that the experts like to argue about and fight about," laughed Professor Campbell Macknight.

He's spent 50 years of his life and work dedicated to such research, examining the period in history that the trepang trade was booming in China to help determine when the Makassans first arrived in Australia.

"If we look at the trepang exports from Makassar to China around 1780, they suddenly boom," he says.

"There's a great big boom in the amount of trepang coming in and it must've come from Arnhem Land - this explains that boom, given China could take as much as they could get.

"There are all sorts of arguments about radio carbon dates and so forth, but the truth is, they started coming to Arnhem Land in about 1780."

That's 10 years after Captain Cook sailed by but didn't stop in the NT. The Makassans did, however, arrive in the Kimberley by 1750.

That carbon dating refers to the human occupation of a cave on Groote Eylandt, which anthropologists from the Anindilyakwa Land Council say dates back 500 to 600 years.

But it's not known how old the painting of a Makassan prau, or boat is, painted on the cave walls.

Professor Macknight said there was no evidence to prove the painting could be that old.

"I can't fully explain them, but they are clearly wrong," he said.

"It's like if you got a radio carbon date on some early tank from World War I and this told you there'd been a tank cruising around 500 to 600 years ago - you'd think something was wrong."

Heritage consultant Mike Owen from the Past Masters history group agrees the boom in the trepang trade occurred in the 18th century, but believes the Makassans were coming to Australia from at least the mid-1600s.

"I think there's good evidence of contact between Yolngu, and many different groups, for a very extended period; they [Yolngu people] talk about whale hunters and metal-working."

1873 photos of Aboriginal people in Makassar discovered

There are generations of Yolngu stories that say people travelled to Sulawesi, as well as to Manila, Dilli and Singapore.

Professor Macknight recently discovered photos in a Rome museum of Aboriginal people in Makassar, taken in 1873.

Just a year later, a 1874 expedition searching for gold in Arnhem Land came across an Aboriginal man who spoke some English. He told the group he'd learned the language on a trip to Singapore.

"Once you got to Makassar there were boats going everywhere, you could just get onto a boat and go to Singapore or Dili, or wherever, because you could sign on as a crew person," Professor Macknight said.

"And certainly, lots of Aboriginal people would've had a reasonable command of the Makassar language."

There are accounts of Aboriginal people in Makassar as early as 1823, with a visiting Dutch governor-general making a note: "Very black, tall in stature, with curly hair, not frizzy like that of the Papuan peoples, long legs, thick lips, and, in general, are quite well built."

Family ties

Just over 30 years ago, Dr Cooke took a field trip of students and staff from Batchelor College to Ujung Padang to investigate familial and linguistic links between the Yolngu and Makassan peoples.

They discovered family links between those in the group and an elderly Makassan woman because her father, a trepang sea captain named Hussein Dang Rangkar, had also fathered a boy and girl in Arnhem Land.

The connection was made because the elderly woman, named Ibu Saribanung Daeng Nganne, had remembered the names of her half-brother and half-sister who lived on Elcho Island.

"One in our group was the great-great-granddaughter of this old lady's father [the sea captain]," Dr Cooke said.

"Another of our group was related by marriage, because this woman's husband was a great-great-grandson of the man who the woman named as her half-brother."

Djalinda Yunupingu, a senior cultural adviser from Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, was on that trip, and said it was known the sea captain had met a Yolgnu woman in Arnhem Land and fathered her children.

"I met that old lady [in Ujung Padang], and when we came back, maybe a couple of days later she passed away," she said.

"She just wanted to see a group of Yolngu people."

During Dr Cooke's trip to Sulawesi in 1986, they discovered another 50 shared words to add to a vocabulary already 300 words strong.

Rock formations and sacred sites

In Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land, more than 50 rock formations - known as stone pictures - were documented by Professor Macknight his associate Bill Gray in 1967.

The pair returned to the site for the first time last year, where the formations show a detailed Makassan prau; a house with eight rooms; sites where trepang was processed; canoes collecting trepang; stone fireplaces; and firewood.

"They were put there to represent the Makassans coming to our shores and collecting trepangs," Ms Yunupingu says.

"Keeping that place as a sacred site where people can go and have a look and go to that place and see how we were connected to the Makassans."

What's been left behind

The Arnhem Land coastline is also full of archaeological finds, like pottery, knives, and coins.

Tamarind trees were also introduced by the northern neighbours, and on Milingimbi trees more than 100 years old still stand.

"We all know that by putting tamarind trees, that they were there," Ms Yunupingu says.

Mr Owen believes a tamarind tree at the Gardens golf course in Darwin was put there by the Makassans, which he believes means they arrived in Darwin, but probably did not find trepang, and rather could've been after palm tree wax.

"They were chopping up palm trees, boiling off the oil and solidifying the wax to make candles and sails and all sorts of things - essential commodities in those days," Mr Owens said.

Evidence of dealings with China, Tanzania, Portugal

A Chinese figure that pre-dates European settlement was discovered at the base of a banyan tree at Doctor's Gully, near Darwin Port in 1879. Historians believe it's possibly from the second half of the 19th century.

The artefact, known as 'Shou Lao', is now housed in the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney.

A group of workmen made the discovery in the 1800s while cutting down the tree to make way for a road, finding the figurine wedged amongst its roots.

One theory speculates it most likely came with the Makassans who had contact with China.

But others dispute that, because trepangers did not usually come to Darwin, and they argue it was more likely to have been left by local Chinese people already in Darwin.

A cannon, known as a swivel-gun, was discovered on Dundee Beach by a schoolboy in 2010, and scientific analysis showed it had been submerged for 250 years.

Mr Owen said an analysis of the lead contained in the bronze showed it came from the south of Spain; it's believed to be from a Portuguese ship about the time the Portuguese were in Timor in the early 16th century.

"If a vessel came with the Portuguese in 1515 and went scouting around, it would be quite reasonable to expect it to have one of these guns on board and coming ashore looking for fresh water at Dundee," Mr Owen said.

The Powerhouse Museum recently used an electron microscope to analyse some coins found on the Wessel Islands that were between 800 and 1,000 years old.

The coins, from the Tanzanian port city of Kilwa, were discovered to have surface material that meant they'd been in the presence of high nitrate for centuries. Mr Owen says they could have been kept in the hull of a ship next to gunpowder.

"The notion still is that these coins were carried by a vessel from East Africa, across the Indian Ocean, due west, and that vessel foundered in the Wessel Islands," he said.

'It's absolutely incredible'

We took our findings back to our questioner Kathryn, who says she wasn't surprised China had a hand in the birth of the trading relationship.

"I wasn't expecting to hear so much detail! I wasn't expecting to hear hard evidence, to hear that there's artefacts," she says.

"I was expecting to hear there might be some words in common and some stories going back saying 'this and that happened', but to hear there is a bit of real archaeological evidence supporting the stories, is absolutely incredible and it's really fascinating.

"It seems to be so prosperous and a mutually beneficial relationship, not really negative in the way we usually think when other cultures have contact [but] they seem to be very friendly and help each other with their trading relationship."

Who asked the question?
27-year-old Sydney accountant Kathryn's parents lived in the NT in the 1980s while her father worked as a civil engineer.

The family spent time in Darwin, Alice Springs and at Uluru for the construction of the Yulara resort.

Because of this, Kathryn says she's always had a fascination with stories from the NT, and is curious about trade and contact with Asia because of the geographical location of northern Australia.

"My boyfriend, he's originally from China, and Chinese people generally have spread all around Asia for many, many hundreds of years," she says.

"I just thought that since there had been so much movement in other parts of South-East Asia, there had to be some kind of contact between northern Australia, and I was just wondering if anyone knew about that."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Did Aboriginal and Asian people trade before European settlement in Darwin?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aboriginal people from the north coast of Australia were travelling to the far reaches of South-East Asia long before white settlers ever arrived Down Under. But how far back does the international trade go? Curious Darwin investigates.

# data[].attributes.body
Colonisation and the arrival of British convicts and settlers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware this website contains images, voices and names of people who have died.

Exile or opportunity?

1788: Captain Arthur Phillip establishes a convict settlement at Sydney Cove

1788: Captain Arthur Phillip establishes a convict settlement at Sydney Cove

State Library of New South Wales FL3268277

Use the following additional activities and discussion questions to encourage students (in small groups or as a whole class) to think more deeply about this defining moment.

Questions for discussion

1. What, if any, have been the long-term effects of convict transportation on Australian society?

2. Do you agree with the National Museum of Australia that the arrival of the First Fleet is a defining moment in Australian history? Explain your answer.

Image activities

1. Look carefully at all the images for this defining moment. Tell this story in pictures by placing them in whatever order you think works best. Write a short caption under each image.

2. Which 3 images do you think are the most important for telling this story? Why?

3. If you could pick only one image to represent this story, which one would you choose? Why?

Finding out more

1. What else would you like to know about this defining moment? Write a list of questions and then share these with your classmates. As a group, create a final list of 3 questions and conduct some research to find the answers.

✕

National Library of Australia, MAP NK 276

In a snapshot

The arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove in January of 1788 marked the beginning of the European colonisation of Australia. The fleet was made up of 11 ships carrying convicts from Britain to Australia. Their arrival changed forever the lives of the Eora people, the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land in the Sydney area, and began waves of convict transportation that lasted until 1868.

Can you find out?

1. Who were Australia's first convicts? Why were they transported to Australia?

2. How did Governor Arthur Phillip manage the colony of New South Wales?

3. What were the main ways Aboriginal people were affected by the arrival of Phillip and the First Fleet?

Why was a convict colony set up in Australia?

Britain used transportation to distant lands as a way of getting rid of prisoners. After Britain lost its American colonies in 1783 the jails of England were full. The British decided to begin transporting prisoners to Australia, which had recently been claimed for the British Crown by Lieutenant James Cook.

Prisoners (also known as convicts) were transported for many reasons but mainly for crimes that we might consider to be minor today, such as stealing. Convicts who were transported were usually poor, often from the large industrial cities and were mostly from England (with a large minority from Ireland and Scotland).

The First Fleet of 11 ships, commanded by Captain Arthur Phillip, set up a convict settlement at Sydney Cove (now Circular Quay) on 26 January 1788. This was the beginning of convict settlement in Australia.

✕

National Museum of Australia

Who was Australia's first governor?

Captain Arthur Phillip was an experienced naval officer who became first governor of the colony of New South Wales. He faced many challenges in the early years of settlement. He was prepared to punish people who broke the rules, but also rewarded convicts and free settlers who behaved well.

Almost straight away, the new colony faced starvation. The first crops failed because of the lack of skilled farmers, spoilt seed brought from England, poor local soils, an unfamiliar climate and bad tools. Phillip insisted that food be shared between convicts and free settlers. The British Officers didn't like this, nor the fact that Phillip gave land to trustworthy convicts. But both actions meant that the colony survived, and they began an attitude of fairness that is still prized in Australia today.

Research task
Research the sorts of people who travelled on the 11 ships that made up the First Fleet. How many convicts (male and female), free settlers, crew, marines, officials and children were on board?

What effect did the First Fleet have on Australia's first peoples?

The arrival of the First Fleet immediately affected the Eora nation, the traditional Aboriginal owners of the Sydney area. Violence between settlers and the Eora people started as soon as the colony was set up. The Eora people, particularly the warrior Pemulwuy, fought the colonisers. This conflict was mainly over land and food.

Phillip was speared during a meeting with Eora at Manly in 1790, but he recovered and continued as the colony's first governor for two more years. He returned to England in 1792 with two Indigenous men: Bennelong, who later returned to Australia, and Yemmerrawannie, who died in England.

Thousands of Eora people died as a result of European diseases like smallpox.

What were the long-term effects of the First Fleet?

The First Fleet was the beginning of convict transportation to Australia and was followed by many other fleets of convict ships. When this ended in 1868, over 150,000 convicts had been transported to New South Wales and other Australian colonies. Most convicts stayed in Australia after serving their sentences, and some became well-known, important people within the Australian colonies.

Convict settlement continued to have devastating effects on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the decades after 1788. Thousands died in conflicts with settlers and from diseases, and many more suffered from the loss of cultural traditions and languages.

Read a longer version of this Defining Moment on the National Museum of Australia's website.

What did you learn?

1. Who were Australia's first convicts? Why were they transported to Australia?

2. How did Governor Arthur Phillip manage the colony of New South Wales?

3. What were the main ways Aboriginal people were affected by the arrival of Phillip and the First Fleet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First Fleet arrives at Sydney Cove | Australia's Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove in January of 1788 marked the beginning of the European colonisation of Australia. The fleet was made up of 11 ships carrying convicts from Britain to Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
Chinese labourers - gold rush

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earliest Chinese contact with Australia

The earliest Chinese contact with Australia appears to have come from fishermen searching the north-western coastline of Australia for sandalwood, bêche-de-mer (trepang) and sea cucumbers.

Chinese sources refer to a 1477 map that shows the outline of the Australian continent. In the journal of HMS Investigator, Matthew Flinders noted that the Aboriginal people of the Gulf of Carpentaria seemed familiar with firearms and iron tools. He reported seeing pieces of earthen jars, bamboo latticework and other articles which he thought to be of Chinese origin.

Records show that about 18 Chinese settlers had immigrated to Australia before 1848. The earliest known Chinese immigrant to arrive in Sydney is reported to have been Mak Sai Ying. Born in Guangzhou (Canton) in 1798, he arrived as a free settler in New South Wales in 1818 and purchased land at Parramatta.

In 1829 Mak Sai Ying (or John Shying, as he became known) was granted the licence for The Lion, a public house at Parramatta. His descendants became cabinet-makers and undertakers in Sydney.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harvest of Endurance is a 50-metre-long scroll, representing two centuries of Chinese contact with, and emigration to, Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
Sugar plantations in QLD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1863 a group of 67 South Sea Islanders were brought to Queensland to perform manual labour in the cotton and sugar industries.

They were the first of more than 62,000 Pacific Island men, women and children who were transported to Australia over the next 40 years. Some were kidnapped, or 'blackbirded', others were misled.

Over the years, the Queensland Government attempted to curtail their exploitation but with limited success.

In 1901 the federal government passed the Pacific Island Labourers Act, which called for the deportation of most South Sea Islanders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1860s: South Sea Islanders brought to Queensland as indentured labourers

# data[].attributes.body
Cameleers in the mid 19th Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 120 years ago, thousands of camel drivers from Afghanistan and the provinces of modern day Pakistan and India left their homes and families for the unknown shores of Australia.

Camels were first introduced to Australia in the 1840s from the Canary Islands

Camel trains moved people and goods through Australia until the introduction of road and rail infrastructure in the 1920s

The cameleers helped to introduce Islam to Australia and built the first mosque in Marree, SA

Wearing turbans and carrying their Korans, the men were known as cameleers, Afghans, or Ghans.

Their job was to lead camel trains through outback Australia, transporting supplies from cities to regional towns, inland mines, and stations.

They were also guides on expeditions, located water sources, and ensured a safe journey for travellers.

Without their contribution, outback communities would not have been able to survive.

Now the legacy of the Afghan cameleers is being preserved by their descendants who are seeking recognition for their efforts to help build and connect Australia.

An Afghan and Aboriginal history

Among those men who left their homes and families was Goolam Badoola Rind from the Pakistan province of Balochistan.

Mr Rind worked in Western Australia's Goldfields, transporting supplies.

It was there he met his wife, Wongi-Yamaji woman Marian Martin.

At the time, cameleers were not allowed to bring their families into the country so marriages between Afghan men and Aboriginal women often occurred.

Neither group were welcome in town after dark and were not allowed to share facilities like swimming baths or pubs.

The Afghans were also forced to live on the opposite side of the train tracks in camps away from the white population.

They often enlisted the help of Aboriginal trackers on expeditions, and through their work and common treatment relationships formed.

Goolam and Marian were married at Perth Mosque in 1917, but the marriage was not legally recognised under the policies of the day.

The marriage put them both at risk because it was considered an illegal act.

Perth man Gohar Rind, the great-grandson of Goolam and Marian, said understanding the significance of the cameleers' work could help to make Australia more inclusive.

"If those efforts of the cameleers are understood, appreciated and acknowledged, then there would be better cohesion between different communities," Mr Rind said.

Children at risk

Mr Rind's great grandmother Marian tragically died giving birth to her fourth child, leaving Goolam alone to raise them.

Indigenous children of mixed heritage were taken into missions and were often never allowed to see their families again, so Mr Rind said his great grandfather took drastic action to keep his young family safe.

"He called his brother and sent them back to India where they grew up, got married, and had kids," he said.

Goolam stayed in WA until 1935 when he went back to India to be with his children.

In the early 1970s, the Rind family proved their Aboriginality and were allowed to come back to Australia.

Mr Rind said he was proud of his mixed heritage and wanted to see the stories like his ancestors preserved and remembered.

An ancestor of an Indian cameleer has done just that.

Search for final resting place

In 2014, Kam Khurram Bux decided it was time to honour his great grandfather's memory, Indian cameleer Ameer Bux.

Mr Bux came to Australia in the late 1800s to help his son, Mahomed Bux, with his thriving trade business.

Mohamed was importing camels into Fremantle and at the age of 70 Ameer offered to help take a camel train to the prosperous gold rush town of Coolgardie in the Goldfields region of WA.

The 600-kilometre journey was to take 12 days, but tragically Ameer died of heat exhaustion and dysentery.

His body was buried in an unmarked grave in the Afghan section of Coolgardie cemetery.

Mr Bux decided to properly mark the grave with a headstone.

Mr Bux said he felt his great grandfather had not rested because no-one from his family had come to visit his grave.

"Nobody had been there since 1897 when he died," he said.

Mosque murder scandal

Tim Moore, a historian for the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, has spent many hours investigating the long forgotten quirky and sometimes gruesome tales of the cameleers.

"Here on the Goldfields you've got this fabulous community of people, and they're very exotic," Mr Moore said.

The cameleers were astute businessmen who managed to amass significant wealth, which Mr Moore said caused conflicts within the community.

Mr Moore said they also established WA's first mosque, in Coolgardie.

"In 1896, a guy called Tagh Mahomet who was a businessman here in the Goldfields was shot in the back of the head by a guy called Goulam Mahomet," he said.

"That caused an absolute scandal because Tagh Mahomet was considered one of the best businessmen on the Goldfields.

"A very trustworthy man. It also happened in the mosque which was an absolute no-no."

History erased

Once mechanisation was introduced there was no need for camels anymore.

By the late 1920s, the Afghans began packing up their camps and leaving Australia.

Long history of the Australian mosque

Mosques are part of our suburban landscape, and those opposed to their building do not recognise their long history here or potential to support Australian ideals, writes Sam Bowker.

Read more

Despite their massive influence on the region there is hardly any evidence of the cameleers' presence in the Goldfields.

"Once they leave, everything disappears," Mr Moore said.

"[There were] child's shoes, a copy of the Koran, and some articles of clothing. Otherwise you wouldn't actually know there was an Afghan population here during the gold rush period."

The mosque was also pulled down. The only remnant is a crescent moon at the top of the rotunda on the gazebo in Kalgoorlie's Hammond Park.

Although there are thousands of feral camels running wild throughout the state, in Coolgardie there's only one place you can interact with them.

Noel McKay runs Coolgardie Camel Farm where you will find a makeshift museum inside a big green tin shed, and five friendly camels who are always keen for a scratch and a yarn.

Mr McKay said something that remained as a permanent reminder of the cameleers' presence in the Goldfields were the wide roads.

"If you have a heavy load on a camel you can't turn very sharply," he said.

"You need a wide turning circle for a heavily-loaded camel, otherwise it might dislocate his shoulders or head."

Mr McKay said people in the Goldfields owed a lot to the cameleers and their camels.

"Without them there would have been a lot more holes in the cemetery out there," Mr McKay said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Forgotten history of Australia's exotic cameleers revived by living relatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 120 years ago, thousands of camel drivers from Afghanistan and the provinces of modern day Pakistan and India left their homes and families for the unknown shores of Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
Pearl divers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Japanese crew on a lugger owned by Victor Kepert (in the hat), about 1914 or early 1920s

Dangerous diving in deep waters

By the 1870s the exhaustion of shell in shallow waters forced divers to exploit beds in deeper water.

They used German-designed equipment, including a helmet and a wire-reinforced rubber air hose, supplied by a hand-operated air pump on the boat.

Each boat, or lugger, had only one or two divers. Just one diver would go down at a time. One of the other five or six crewmen, the tender, helped the diver into his gear, including a canvas suit and steel corselet.

The diver climbed into the sea, weighted down by 6.3-kilogram boots and 50 kilograms of lead lashed to his body.

Holding his air hose and a rope, he walked on the seabed spotting and picking up shells. He communicated with the boat by a coded set of tugs on the rope, which was also used to haul both diver and shells back to the boat.

Each dive was quite short, generally between five and 20 minutes on the ocean floor.

Boats spent weeks or months at sea. Crews slept in tiny 1.4-metre-high cabins. The boats were infested with cockroaches, food was monotonous and at close quarters tempers could be stretched.

In the Torres Strait and at Cossack divers generally only had to go down 5 to 10 fathoms (9 to 18 metres). But the rich pearl shell beds at Broome lay 20 to 25 fathoms underwater (36 to 45 metres). This meant the diving was much more dangerous.

If divers came up too quickly they would suffer from 'diver's paralysis', or the 'bends', caused by bubbles of nitrogen entering bodily tissues. The result was agonising pain and, all too often, death.

Only in 1912 were Royal Navy 'staging' tables adopted in Australia to try and ensure a safe rate of ascent. Even then they were often ignored. Divers often suffered from rheumatism. Other dangers included sharks, hidden holes on the sea floor and snagged safety lines.

# data[].attributes.headline
Policy: Immigration Restriction Act 1901 - 1958

# data[].attributes.subject
Policy: Immigration Restriction Act 1901 - 1958

# data[].attributes.body
White Australia Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 'White Australia' ideology was commercialised and used to sell things from soaps and games to pineapple slices. Multicultural Research Library

The Conversation is running a series of explainers on key moments in Australian political history, looking at what happened, its impact then, and its relevance to politics today.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has repeatedly claimed that Australia is the world's most successful multicultural nation. While the sentiment has bipartisan support today, for more than half a century after Federation Australia boasted not of multiculturalism, but of its monoculture.

In 1925, Prime Minister Stanley Bruce reassured a worried public that Australia's racial makeup was 98% British and that this was unlikely to change. The means of maintaining this racial and cultural homogeneity is loosely termed the White Australia policy.

Immediately following Federation in 1901, policies were designed to keep Australia white and British. Non-racial language was used to minimise international condemnation, but the xenophobic concern was plainly evident. Australia's first prime minister, Edmund Barton, explicitly stated his belief in white superiority:

There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races - I think no-one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior.

The White Australia policy was in place for seven decades after 1901 and had a profound impact on the newly federated Commonwealth.

What happened?

The White Australia policy was not a single government directive but a series of acts with a common goal: to achieve and maintain a white, British national character. The Immigration Restriction Act, Pacific Island Labourers Act and the Post and Telegraph Act (all passed in 1901) formed the initial legislative foundation.

The Immigration Restriction Act in particular epitomises the spirit of the White Australia policy, and its hypocrisy. It never mentioned the words "white" or "race", but the parliamentary debates - and its application - make clear it was a tool of racial exclusion.

The act's most infamous feature was a dictation test. Migrants could be asked to write 50 words in any European language. Officers could manipulate the test to exclude any undesired person.

The most famous example was Jewish communist Egon Kisch. Fluent in several European languages, he was arrested after failing to recite the Lord's Prayer in Scottish Gaelic.

Between 1901 and 1958 (when it was dumped), only around 2,000 people ever took the test. Despite the non-racial terminology, its purpose was understood. As a direct result, non-whites largely avoided coming to Australia, and overseas shipping companies did not issue tickets to people likely to fail the test.

The White Australia policy received bipartisan support, but was gradually dismantled by both sides. Conservative governments introduced the Migration Act in 1958 and its significant modification in 1966.

Driven partly by the " populate or perish " doctrine, non-Europeans were allowed to come to Australia based on skills and suitability rather than race. Eventually they were offered the same pathway to citizenship as Europeans.

The progressive Whitlam government symbolically buried the last remnants of the White Australia policy in 1973. The Racial Discrimination Act made it illegal to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of their race. Those words are from Section 18C of that act, which the current government is seeking to amend.

What was its impact?

The legal mechanisms of the White Australia policy were tied to a widespread belief in the superiority of British civilisation and the white race generally during this era.

The masthead of the popular Bulletin magazine read:

Australia for the White Man.

The object of the White Australia board game was to:

... get the coloured men out and the white men in.

There were White Australia theatre productions, songs, pins and badges, soaps, and even a White Australia brand of sliced pineapple in syrup. It was as much a cultural as political phenomenon, and it could not be simply extinguished with an act of parliament.

The acceptance of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees under the Fraser government was seen as a litmus test of whether the White Australia policy was really gone.

Migration Heritage Centre

What are its contemporary implications?

Both major parties have endorsed multiculturalism for nearly half a century. Even in this era of Trumpian populist politics, it is inconceivable that Australia would ever return to race-based immigration policies.

But if the White Australia policy is dead, has the White Australia ideology survived?

In the 1980s, the Garnaut report made the economic case for greater Asia literacy. However, the region was - and still is - viewed by many with suspicion. In 1996, Pauline Hanson warned parliament that Australia risked being " swamped by Asians ".

In the lead-up to the 2001 election, Norwegian container ship the MV Tampa rescued 438 asylum seekers and attempted to enter Australian waters. Prime Minister John Howard refused to accept them, causing a tense diplomatic stand-off. The widespread support for Howard, which arguably helped him secure election victory, has been seen by some as evidence of a lingering White Australia mindset.

Academics James Jupp and Gwenda Tavan have argued that the White Australia ideology is still shaping Australian immigration policies in the 21st century, especially in regard to refugees. The bipartisan commitment to offshore processing and the re-emergence of Hanson's One Nation party following the 2016 election lend some weight to this view.

The dictation test was undoubtedly political spin to justify a racist agenda. A century later, similar charges have been levelled at the "stopping deaths at sea" defence, which is used to justify the current " harsh " treatment of predominantly non-white asylum seekers.

As a policy, White Australia is gone. But as an ideology, it arguably lingers on. There certainly is a minority who want to " reclaim " an imagined idyllic Australia of yesteryear, with its white monoculture.

An overwhelming majority, however, agree with the prime minister. Multiculturalism is here to stay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian politics explainer: the White Australia policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Conversation is running a series of explainers on key moments in Australian political history, looking at what happened, its impact then, and its relevance to politics today. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has repeatedly claimed that Australia is the world's most successful multicultural nation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Policy: 'Populate or Perish' 1945 - 1965

# data[].attributes.subject
Policy: 'Populate or Perish' 1945 - 1965

# data[].attributes.body
Non-British European migrants - Greece, Italy, Poland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Populate or perish

When Japan entered the Second World War in December 1941 its troops quickly moved south, occupying much of South-East Asia and the Pacific. Singapore fell in February 1942 and Darwin was bombed shortly after.

In Australia, the threat of invasion was very real and the country was more vulnerable than previously thought. These susceptibilities meant that well before the war ended on 14 August 1945, the government had begun considering policies that would boost Australia's population and its defences.

Arthur Calwell was appointed Australia's first Minister for Immigration in July 1945. Addressing parliament a few weeks later, he stated 'If Australians have learned one lesson from the Pacific war ... it is surely that we cannot continue to hold our island continent for ourselves and our descendants unless we greatly increase our numbers ... much development and settlement have yet to be undertaken. Our need to undertake it is urgent and imperative if we are to survive.'

Calwell's call for immediate migration was significant but perhaps even more important were the final sentences of his speech: 'The door to Australia will always be open within limits of our existing legislation to the people from the various dominions, United States of America and from European continental countries'.

For the first time, the government had declared that it was willing to accept migrants from beyond the British Isles. It was a huge step forward considering the prevalence of the White Australia policy and the underlying public attitudes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Japan entered the Second World War in December 1941 its troops quickly moved south, occupying much of South-East Asia and the Pacific. Singapore fell in February 1942 and Darwin was bombed shortly after. In Australia, the threat of invasion was very real and the country was more vulnerable than previously thought.

# data[].attributes.body
Refugees from the Vietnam war

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 80,000 Vietnamese people moved to Australia in the decade following the Vietnam War, many as refugees.

Thursday, April 30 marks 40 years since the North Vietnamese took the South's capital of Saigon and renamed it Ho Chi Minh City after their former nationalist leader.

Fewer than 700 Australians reported Vietnam was their birth place in the 1971 census but that number grew to more than 80,000 15 years later.

At the most recent census in 2011 more than 180,000 Australians said Vietnam was their place of birth. The actual number of Vietnamese-born Australians is estimated to be more than 200,000 since many people did not declare their place of birth in the national survey.

The influx of Vietnamese people to Australia came just after the Whitlam government removed the last elements of the "White Australia Policy" in the 1970s.

The term White Australia Policy refers to a series of laws that prevented people from outside Europe immigrating to Australia, starting with the Immigration Restriction Act 1901.

That law required immigrants to take a dictation test in any European language until the test was removed in 1958.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which made racial discrimination illegal, came into effect during the last month of the Whitlam government.

In the seven years ending in 1982 Australia accepted close to 60,000 Vietnamese refugees, most via plane.

While more than 2000 Vietnamese people came to Australia in unauthorised boats in the seven years following the fall of Saigon, many more started their voyages but were killed at sea.

Various accounts, some personal, said Thai pirates often raped Vietnamese women and killed Vietnamese boat refugees, including children.

A 1982 news article said one 17-year-old woman was raped by seven pirates and then set afloat in a basket. Two days later she was picked up by another boat, raped, and set afloat again before she was finally rescued by a friendly vessel.

Many who stayed in Vietnam after 1975 faced harsh treatment in camps similar to the USSR's Gulag camps, the late professor of political science Rudolph J Rummel wrote in 1997.

Prof Rummel estimated the Vietnamese government killed one million people and potentially many more in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos between 1975 and 1987.

Despite the hardships of Vietnamese people in their voyages to Australia, some Australians harnessed negative public sentiment towards the mass intake of refugees.

Several ministers of parliament and some newspapers labelled Vietnamese arrivals as queue jumpers, who were accused of carefully planning their stories to attract sympathy.

'I had to flee to survive'

Tuong Quang Luu was as a senior diplomat for the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) before the fall of Saigon.

His affiliations meant it was dangerous for him to stay in Vietnam after 1975.

"I had to flee to survive. There's no question whatsoever that I would have been captured by the communists and placed in a concentration camp, and would not survive," Mr Luu said.

When Saigon fell Mr Luu disguised himself in black clothes, which the communist militant group the Viet Cong commonly wore, to avoid capture as he fled to the coast.

Most people who fled Vietnam did so for political reasons, Mr Luu said.

Despite the pressing situation for Mr Luu and many others who fled, refugees moved to an environment of negative public sentiment.

"The White Australia Policy had been abolished. The public opinion had not been turned around," Mr Luu said.

He said Australia's political leadership in the years following the Vietnam War meant Australia could change.

"The policy of the Fraser government was a very courageous one and very visionary," Mr Luu said.

"Leading the public opinion, not following the public opinion."

He said many in Australia, including church leaders, academics and some elements of the media supported the government in its stance, despite public opinion.

"If you conducted a survey of the general public, it would not have been in favour of resettlement of a large number of people in such a short space of time," he said.

Mr Luu did not receive abuse or discrimination, although some Vietnamese refugees did.

Today, Vietnam is a major country of origin for Australia's estimated residential population who were born overseas.

Vietnamese people generally found the transition to Australian life difficult, Mr Luu said.

Finding work was problematic because of barriers like language and culture.

Mr Luu is now retired in Australia and was formerly the head of SBS Radio.

'My family's from Saigon'

Cam Nguyen came to Australia in 1975 after her husband worked for the former South Vietnamese government.

She returned to Saigon for the first time three years ago.

"My family's from Saigon," Ms Nguyen said.

"I would never call it Ho Chi Minh City."

When Ms Nguyen visited she saw many statues commemorating the service of the former northern communist soldiers, but no memorials for South Vietnamese soldiers.

She said the monuments were common, even in smaller population centres.

When the Nguyens came to Australia, they went to Melbourne.

Today the Melbourne suburbs of Springvale, Footscray and Richmond are centres of Vietnamese business and culture.

"In the late 1970s the Richmond commercial street was full of Italian and Greek businesses, which had closed," Ms Nguyen said.

"Vietnamese new arrivals could afford to rent, or buy those shops.

"That's why Richmond became a hub of Vietnamese business."

Ms Nguyen founded and currently heads up the Australian Vietnamese Women's Association (AVWA), which is believed to be the largest provider of services to Vietnamese people in the entire diaspora.

Vietnamese immigration to Australia has continued for four decades, which Ms Nguyen said was partially so families could be together.

"The pull factor is that people know that life is good in Australia, the community is multicultural and young people want to come here to study and make a life for themselves."

"There is also a push factor of human rights in Vietnam. The current government rates rather poorly in the scale of respect for human rights," Ms Nguyen said.

Last year, Human Rights Watch said there were an estimated 150-200 political prisoners in Vietnam, including 63 people who were convicted by politically-controlled courts in 2013.

The most recent Freedom in the World report from Freedom House said Vietnam was getting tougher on free speech, in a country that bans human rights organisations.

Fleeing Vietnam, 15 years after the war

Bich Thuy Pham came to Australia as a refugee in 1990.

Her family worked for the South Vietnamese government before 1975, but 15 years later the Pham family still faced discrimination at the hands of the communists when she left for a refugee camp in Malaysia.

The communist government stopped her family from working or going to university, because of their affiliations with the former government, she said.

Today Ms Pham works at Asian Women At Work, an organisation that helps refugee women find work in Australia.
Watch Dateline on Tuesday night to see the story of two brothers who go back to Vietnam in search of answers, from 9.30pm on SBS One.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Vietnamese refugees who changed white Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 80,000 Vietnamese people moved to Australia in the decade following the Vietnam War, many as refugees. Thursday, April 30 marks 40 years since the North Vietnamese took the South's capital of Saigon and renamed it Ho Chi Minh City after their former nationalist leader.

# data[].attributes.body
Whitlam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elsa Koleth
Social Policy Section
8 October 2010

Contents

The author would like to thank Dr James Jupp and colleagues Dr Luke Buckmaster and Dr Mark Rodrigues for their insightful comments and assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Multiculturalism has been a contested policy and concept since its introduction in Australia in the 1970s. While maintaining some core principles, in the three decades since its introduction, federal multicultural policy statements have evolved in response to changing government priorities and responses to the challenges facing Australian society. While Australian multicultural policy has its roots in government responses to the post-settlement issues facing migrants, through the 1980s and 1990s policy was articulated more broadly as an element of Australia's nation building narratives. Today all Australian States and Territories have active policies and programs dealing with multiculturalism.

Australia's last federal multicultural policy statement was issued in 2003 and intended to apply until 2006, with no new federal multicultural policy statements being issued since. In the past ten years, at the national level multiculturalism has been subjected to criticism in public and political debate, with some expressions of support for earlier policies of assimilation and integration.

Australian public and political debate about multiculturalism in the last decade has been significantly impacted upon by issues that have had international resonance. Chief among these has been concern about the global threat of terrorism and the challenges of ensuring social cohesion in societies characterised by ethno-cultural diversity. While these issues have manifested in different ways in immigrant-receiving countries in Europe, North America and in the United Kingdom in many cases public debates have questioned the limits of multiculturalism and governments have heightened their regulation of integration, citizenship and immigration.

As global migration increases in scale and complexity Australia, like many countries in the world, will continue to be faced with the challenges of constructively engaging the policy frameworks it has established in building a multicultural society, while finding innovative approaches to deal with the increasingly complex nature of contemporary diversity.

Introduction

From its genesis as a policy framework to respond to the needs of immigrants, multiculturalism became a concept that articulated the character of the growing ethno-cultural diversity of society in the latter decades of the twentieth century. Always contested, multiculturalism and the ethno-cultural diversity that it symbolises have become increasingly controversial and subject to scrutiny in response to the security and social challenges of the early twenty-first century. This paper provides an overview of Australia's federal multicultural policies, briefly draws attention to state and territory multicultural policy frameworks, and reviews some key issues in recent public debates about multiculturalism in Australia and overseas, with a focus on post-immigration multiculturalism.

Part One of the paper reviews the evolution of Australia's federal multicultural policies between their introduction in the 1970s up to the period of the 2010 federal election. It is largely descriptive and is intended to identify key policy statements and reports surrounding government policy statements.

Part Two of the paper highlights prominent issues in public debates about multiculturalism and ethno-cultural diversity through a review of relevant literature and media commentary. The discussion focuses on issues in public debates in the last ten years, because-while the challenges of the past decade may, in many cases, have roots in the policies, practices and issues of previous decades-the events and concerns catalysing public debate in the past decade have profoundly changed the way in which society has engaged with the concept of multiculturalism. While Part Two focuses in greatest detail on public discourse in Australia, it also touches, albeit briefly, upon issues facing some comparable immigrant‑receiving countries in North America and Europe. Part Two broadens the discussion of multiculturalism beyond Australia in recognition of the fact that the issues, events, and even rhetoric, that have animated Australian debates about multiculturalism, particularly in the past ten years, transcend national borders and have reverberated in various forms in other parts of the world. While there continue to be significant differences amongst the countries discussed there are also some interesting parallels. As global migration increases in scale and complexity Australia is one among many nations that are faced with the challenges of responding effectively and imaginatively to the increasing diversity of contemporary societies.

The Appendices to the paper contain a list of key Australian Government statements and reports, key Australian multicultural institutions, state and territory government documents and websites, and a list of key references and resources used in the paper.

Multiculturalism was a concept and policy devised to respond to the increasing ethno-cultural diversity of Australian society resulting from mass immigration in the decades following World War II, and the abandonment of racially restricted immigration policies in the 1960s, in a way that overcame the limitations of previous approaches of assimilation and integration.[1] Since the establishment of Australia's first Department of Immigration in 1945, the focus of government policy on immigrant settlement and public discourse about the resulting ethno-cultural diversity of society has fluctuated-shifting in emphasis from assimilation and integration to multiculturalism, and, in recent times, a return to assimilation and integration.

Assimilation policies of the 1940s and 1950s required new arrivals to learn English, adopt Australian cultural practices and become indistinguishable from the Australian-born population as quickly as possible. By the late 1960s, government policy had moved towards a policy of integration, reflecting a greater awareness of the difficulties faced by new migrants and an acceptance of the possibility that migrants could integrate successfully in Australian society without losing their national identities completely. Echoing developments in other immigrant-receiving countries, notably Canada, by the late 1970s there was a growing acceptance of broader expressions of cultural diversity or 'multiculturalism' within Australian society.

Over time the term 'multiculturalism' has come to refer to the demographic reality of cultural diversity, a set of policies and policy orientations, as well as a concept which articulates a normative ideal or ideals about society. Multiculturalism has served a variety of goals over the years, including, the pursuit of social justice, the recognition of identities and appreciation of diversity, the integration of migrants, nation-building, and attempts to achieve and maintain social cohesion.

From its inception, multiculturalism has been a contested policy and concept, both in Australia and overseas, with detractors often criticising it as a divisive policy and a concept that was allegedly lacking in substance and precision.[2] Government and other services established under multicultural policies have played a significant role in facilitating the settlement of immigrants, and many elements of the service infrastructure have endured despite the controversy surrounding the concept. In the past decade or so, in Australia, as well as a number of prominent immigrant-receiving countries in North America and Europe, the concept of multiculturalism has come under criticism. In both public and government arenas, debate on the benefits of integration and assimilation has re-emerged.

While the policy of multiculturalism was first introduced in Australia at a federal level, Australian state and territory governments have subsequently developed their own multicultural policy frameworks. A significant proportion of multicultural policy development and implementation now occurs at the state and territory level and a great deal of work is also undertaken at the grassroots level, by community organisations and non-government organisations (NGOs).[6] Part One briefly discusses multicultural policies at the state and territory level, with a focus on multicultural policy in NSW and Victoria. However, it is beyond the scope of the present paper to provide a detailed account of multicultural policy development and practice in each of the Australian states and territories, and the proliferation of multicultural initiatives at the grassroots level.

In 1945, the Curtin Government established Australia's first Department of Immigration in order to manage the post-war immigration of migrants and displaced persons.[7] In the early post-war period, migrants and refugees were expected to assimilate and blend into the population as quickly as possible. The Government's assimilation policies were based on an assumption that this would not be difficult for new arrivals given time. Settlement assistance was limited to the provision of migrant hostels and some language tuition.[8]

By the 1960s and 1970s, the focus on 'assimilation' was replaced by a focus on 'integration', and then on to 'multiculturalism' in recognition of the challenges facing migrants in settling into Australian society and acceptance that new arrivals may not want to lose their cultural identity. [9] Building on the easing of racially restricted immigration in the 1960s a universal admissions policy and an end to White Australia were also announced in 1973.[10] These developments gained legislative weight through the Commonwealth Parliament's enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, which aimed to implement Australia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1969) by prohibiting racial and other forms of discrimination.[11]

Multiculturalism was first presented as the basis for migrant settlement, welfare and social-cultural policy in Australia in a 1973 speech entitled A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future, delivered by the Minister for Immigration under the Whitlam Government, Al Grassby.[12] This was the first time the term 'multi-cultural society' was used in an official Australian Government policy statement.[13] However, academic, Mark Lopez argues that multiculturalism had a precarious status as ministerial policy because Grassby had not attempted to change the Labor Party's immigration policy, and the policy direction outlined in his speech was not officially confirmed by the Whitlam Government or the Labor Party.[14] Nevertheless, Lopez argues that by the end of 1973 four of the six state Migrant Taskforce Committees:

... had introduced a wide range of multiculturalist ideas, concepts and policies into the advisory system that the Minister had established to provide a reform agenda to address migrant settlement and welfare problems.[15]

In a Liberal Party policy statement, The Way Ahead, released on 30 April 1974, then Opposition spokesperson for Labour and Immigration, Malcolm Fraser, also invoked the concept of multiculturalism:

... the Liberal and Country parties recognise that there is a need to overcome the complex problems confronting migrants, especially non-English speaking migrants, who already live in the multi-cultural society of today's Australia.[16]

Lopez argues that by this point, Fraser, who took an interest in immigrant and ethnic affairs and was politically and morally predisposed to cultural pluralism, had adopted multiculturalism as a model on which to found migrant settlement and welfare policy.[17] On 20 March 1974, Fraser became the first person to use the term 'multi-cultural society' in parliament.[18] Despite criticising Grassby's speech, A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future, for lacking substance, he characterised the ideological content as 'essentially hopeful'.[19] When he became Prime Minister in November 1975, Fraser's support for the concept of multiculturalism, which was first promoted during the Whitlam Government, saw the establishment of a degree of bipartisan support for multiculturalism.[20]

In a 1977 submission to the Australian Population and Immigration Council, entitled Australia as a Multicultural Society, the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, appointed by the Fraser Government, articulated the first official definition of multiculturalism in an approach they called 'cultural pluralism', based on the principles of social cohesion, equality of opportunity and cultural identity.[21] The submission concluded:

In our view, an acceptance of the multicultural nature of Australian society implies that government and established institutions acknowledge the validity of ethnic cultures and respond in terms of ethnic beliefs, values and customs ... What we believe Australia should be working towards is not a oneness, but a unity, not a similarity, but a composite, not a melting pot but a voluntary bond of dissimilar people sharing a common political and institutional structure.[22]

In the context of decreasing migration from European countries, and increased acceptance of refugees from South-East Asia, the Fraser Government announced the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants on 31 August 1977 and asked Frank Galbally, a prominent Melbourne barrister, to be the Review chairperson. As Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser explained:

We established it in the light of our concern to ensure that the changing needs of migrants are being met as effectively as possible. We asked the Review to have regard to our Federalism policy and our objective of supporting the enterprise and dedication of community groups who provide programs and services to migrants ... we recognise the special needs which migrants, particularly the non-English speaking and the more recently arrived, have in settling here. It was for this reason we established the Review.[23]

The Review was tasked with examining and reporting on the effectiveness of programs and services for migrants which were funded by the Commonwealth and provided by non-government organisations, and to identify areas of need. The resulting Galbally Report, presented to parliament by Malcolm Fraser in April 1978 and subsequently seen as a watershed in the development of multicultural policy, identified multiculturalism as a key concept for the future development of government immigration policy.[24] The Galbally Report identified the right of all Australians to maintain their culture without fear of prejudice and identified the need to provide special services and programs for all migrants to ensure equality of access and provision.[25] The Galbally Report provided a program of action based on the following guiding principles:

(a) all members of our society must have equal opportunity to realise their full potential and must have equal access to programs and services;

(b) every person should be able to maintain his or her culture without prejudice or disadvantage and should be encouraged to understand and embrace other cultures;

(c) needs of migrants should, in general, be met by programs and services available to the whole community but special services and programs are necessary at present to ensure equality of access and provision;

(d) services and programs should be designed and operated in full consultation with clients, and self-help should be encouraged as much as possible with a view to helping migrants to become self-reliant quickly.[26]

In his response to the Galbally Report, Prime Minister Fraser stated:

The Government agrees with the general conclusions of the Review. It agrees Australia is at a critical stage in developing a cohesive, united, multicultural nation. It agrees there is a need to change the direction of its services to migrants and that further steps to encourage multiculturalism are needed.[27]

In 1978, following the Galbally Report on the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants, there was a shift in the government policy framework for responding to migrant settlement and resulting cultural and linguistic diversity, towards multiculturalism.[28] Adoption of the recommendations of the Galbally Report by the Fraser Government led to the expansion of existing settlement services, such as English language teaching, on-arrival accommodation and orientation assistance, interpreting and translating services, assistance with overseas qualifications recognition, as well as the establishment of multicultural resource centres to enable ethnic communities and voluntary agencies to cater to the welfare needs of migrants. [29]

Fraser also identified the broader societal goal of promoting multiculturalism as part of his Government's response to the Galbally Report:

The Government accepts that it is now essential to give significant further encouragement to develop a multicultural attitude in Australian society. It will foster the retention of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and promote intercultural understanding.[30]

Recognising that education was a key element in achieving this goal, Fraser committed funding to the development of multicultural and community language education programs in schools. In addition, the Fraser Government established the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA) to engage in and commission research and to advise the Commonwealth on multicultural issues; extended ethnic radio services and grants to ethnic community organisations; and established the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS).[31]

State and territory governments also established Ethnic Affairs Commissions and Migrant Settlement Councils following the Galbally Report, with the 1980s as a whole being a decade which saw the significant consolidation of multicultural policies and institutions.[32] In 1982 the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, published a policy paper entitled Multiculturalism for all Australians in recognition of the 'widespread uncertainty in the public mind about the meaning of multiculturalism for Australian society'.[33] The paper attempted to counter doubts about the relevance of multiculturalism to the nation as a whole by framing multiculturalism as 'much more than the provision of special services to minority ethnic groups' but rather a 'way of looking at Australian society' that 'involves living together with an awareness of cultural diversity'.[34] The Council advocated a form of multiculturalism set in a cohesive society with a 'common commitment to social and national ideals'.[35] The Council expanded the Ethnic Affairs Council's 1977 formulation of multiculturalism by adding a fourth principle to the principles of social cohesion, cultural identity and equality of opportunity and access: 'equal responsibility for, commitment to and participation in society'.[36] The fourth principle was added to signify that while minority ethnic groups were expected to have a primary loyalty to Australia '[t]he success of multiculturalism in Australia relies on participation by all Australians'.[37]

The Hawke Labor Government introduced a number of cuts to government programs in the mid-1980s, including the abolition of the AIMA in 1986.[38] However, the Hawke Government also introduced a number of new multicultural policy initiatives such as an Access and Equity Strategy to improve access to government services and programs by people of non-English speaking backgrounds, and the establishment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). [39] Among the key developments of this period, recommendations from the 1986 Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services, chaired by Dr James Jupp, led to the establishment of the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to act as a central coordinating agency for multicultural policy.[40] The Review Committee also advocated the strengthening and expansion of the Access and Equity Strategy, a recommendation which was in the same year endorsed in an AIMA report entitled Future Directions for Multiculturalism.[41]

By the late 1980s Australia had a high migrant intake which included significant numbers of new arrivals from Asian and Middle-Eastern countries.[42] It was in this context that in 1988 the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, chaired by Dr Stephen FitzGerald, released its report entitled, Immigration: a Commitment to Australia, warning of a 'clear and present need for urgent immigration reform'.[43] Among its findings the Committee found that the philosophy of multiculturalism was not widely understood and the 'ensuing uninformed debate' was 'damaging the cause it seeks to serve':

Confusion and mistrust of multiculturalism, focussing on the suspicion that it drove immigration policy, was very broadly articulated. Many people, from a variety of occupational and cultural backgrounds, perceived it as divisive. The majority of these people also expressed concern about immigrants' commitment to Australia and to Australian principles and institutions.[44]

The FitzGerald Report argued that the need for a sharper economic focus in the selection of immigrants is the most central issue in immigration reform.[45] The Report also suggested that the government needed to more strongly affirm Australian identity in order to render multiculturalism less threatening or divisive to the community.[46]

In the same year the initial bipartisanship that had characterised the introduction of a multicultural framework was effectively broken when then Opposition Leader, John Howard, called for the abandonment of the term multiculturalism, and a focus on 'One Australia' that:

respects our cultural diversity and acknowledges that we are drawn from many parts of the world but requires of all of us a loyalty to Australia at all times and to her institutions and her values and her traditions which transcends loyalty to any other set of values anywhere in the world.[47]

Some of the issues raised in the FitzGerald Report were manifested in the Hawke Government's 1989 multicultural policy statement, the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia. [48] The National Agenda sought to provide a clear definition of multicultural policy as 'a necessary response to the reality of Australia's cultural diversity'.[49] While continuing to endorse the need to both respect cultural diversity and further assist new migrants to settle in the country, the National Agenda also expressed a commitment to economic efficiency, indicated that pluralism was limited by the need for 'an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia', and framed multiculturalism as applying to all Australians.[50] The National Agenda defined the fundamental principles of multiculturalism based on three rights and three obligations:

The right to cultural identity (expressing and sharing one's individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion); social justice (equality of treatment and opportunity, and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth); and economic efficiency (the need to maintain, develop and utilise effectively the skills and talents of all Australians).

The obligation to have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia, to its interests and future first and foremost; to accept the basic structures and principles of Australia; and to accept that the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values.[51]

The initiatives announced by the Hawke Government as part of the new policy included: the establishment of a National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition; expansion of the Government's Access and Equity Strategy beyond immigrants to address all groups encountering racial, religious, cultural or linguistic barriers to accessing government services; continued and expanded support for English language teaching and second language learning; and a community relations campaign to address ethnic diversity and social cohesion issues.[52] The National Agenda also committed to examining the desirability of an Australian Multiculturalism Act 'to define the principles and, quite explicitly, to set the limits to multiculturalism', and to provide a legislative basis for the Government's Access and Equity strategy.[53] Despite strong support from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils (FECCA), parliamentary support for such an initiative looked unlikely and legislation was not pursued.[54]

Academic, Gwenda Tavan, has described the years of the Hawke and Keating Labor Governments between 1986 and 1996 as being characterised by the expansion of multicultural programs, strong efforts to place multiculturalism within a nationalist narrative where cultural diversity and tolerance were part of Australian national identity, as well the strengthening of relationships between ethnic communities and the Commonwealth and state Labor governments.[55] In addition to the creation of new bodies like the OMA and HREOC, this period also included the establishment of the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research (BIMPR) to conduct research to inform policy-makers, and the establishment of the National Multicultural Advisory Council (NMAC) in July 1994 to advise on multicultural issues.[56] As part of attempts in the National Agenda to expand multiculturalism beyond its focus on migrant settlement issues and articulate the relevance of multiculturalism for all Australians, government multicultural policies in this period also addressed issues concerning Indigenous Australians and the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as part of the reconciliation process.[57] However, the inclusion of Indigenous issues within the rubric of multicultural policy was controversial as Indigenous Australians wished to be recognised as having a special place in Australian society as the first peoples, and did not necessarily agree with being subsumed into the same category as other ethnic communities.[58]

Despite the growth of multicultural programs in this period, the social justice objectives of multicultural policy were undermined by evidence of persisting structural inequalities and injustices facing particular migrant communities as well as enduring disadvantage faced by Indigenous Australians.[59] The NMAC released a report entitled Multicultural Australia: the next steps in June 1995, which attempted to go beyond the 1989 National Agenda to address the 'vision' that 'all Australians participate in the major public institutions and processes of society to the level of their capacity and interest and, where appropriate, these institutions and processes reflect the cultural diversity of society'.[60] The Keating Government in its response to the NMAC Report articulated a 'Multicultural Compact' which set out to provide 'a clear, simple statement of the policy for the benefit of all Australians, and sets out the balance of rights and obligations between individuals and the community in a multicultural society'.[61] The Compact echoed the National Agenda of 1989 by characterising multicultural policy as including three dimensions: cultural identity, social justice and productive diversity.[62] Among the initiatives announced by the Government in its response to the Report, the Government committed to 'increase the percentage of non-English speaking background and indigenous Commonwealth appointees on its boards and advisory boards, setting a target figure of 15% for the year 2000' to 'better reflect the cultural diversity of Australia and broaden participation in decision-making'.[63] However, the defeat of the Keating Labor government in the 1996 federal election meant that this and other multicultural policy commitments were not implemented.[64]

The Coalition Government that won the 1996 federal election was led by Prime Minister John Howard, who for many years had been a vocal critic of multiculturalism.[65] The Howard Government abolished key agencies such as the OMA, and the BIMPR, restricted access to unemployment benefits and the Adult Migrant English Program to new migrants, and reduced funding and consultation of ethnic organisations as part of a broader package of public sector reforms.[66]

The 1996 election also brought Independent candidate, Pauline Hanson, into Federal Parliament on the strength of the largest swing in the election-19 per cent-in the former Labor seat of Oxley in the state of Queensland.[67] Hanson was a controversial and provocative figure who garnered a great deal of public attention for, among other things, espousing views that were highly critical of what she perceived to be the special treatment afforded to Aboriginal Australians, and of multiculturalism.[68]

In the face of public criticism of multiculturalism, the NMAC, including new members appointed by the Howard Government in June 1997, called for leadership in defence of multiculturalism, in its May 1999 report, Australian Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness.[69] The Council's new terms of reference were to 'develop a report which recommends on a policy and implementation framework for the next decade that is aimed at ensuring that cultural diversity is a unifying force for Australia'.[70] In response to the NMACs's report the Howard Government launched a new multicultural policy statement, A New Agenda for Multicultural Australia, in December 1999.[71] At the NMAC's recommendation the New Agenda adopted the term 'Australian multiculturalism' in recognition of the 'unique' way in which multiculturalism is implemented in reflection of 'Australia's diverse heritage, history, democracy, culture and identity'.[72] The Government also endorsed the principles of 'civic duty', 'cultural respect', 'social equity' and 'productive diversity' nominated by the NMAC as the foundations for multicultural policies based on the 'evolving values of Australian democracy and "citizenship"'.[73] However, the Government did not implement the NMAC's recommendations to provide greater funding for multicultural advocacy, increased diversity on public boards and agencies, or the creation of an independent central coordinating agency.[74] The Howard Government created a Council for Multicultural Australia (CMA), supported by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), to promote community harmony and the benefits of diversity, introduced the Charter for Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society in June 1998, and shifted to a focus on promoting community harmony through the Living in Harmony grants program and Harmony Day.[75]

The New Agenda explicitly recognised that while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, as Australia's 'First Peoples', 'provide a foundation for the cultural diversity of the nation, it is appropriate that their distinct needs and rights be reaffirmed and accorded separate consideration'.[76] However, within three years of this policy statement being released in November 2001 the then Department of Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs was incorporated within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) as the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (OATSIA).[77] Academic, James Jupp, notes this move to create a 'ministry of other people' effectively 'ran contrary to most public declarations of Aboriginal organisations and spokespersons in the past'.[78]

Following a review of the CMA and the implementation of the New Agenda, in 2003, the Howard Government issued a new policy statement, Multicultural Australia: United in Diversity: Updating the 1999 New Agenda for Multicultural Australia: Strategic directions for 2003-2006.[79] Prime Minister Howard wrote in the foreword:

This new statement reaffirms the government's commitment to promoting diversity, understanding and tolerance in all areas of endeavour. These actions are especially important given the tragic events of 11 September 2001 in the United States of America and 12 October 2002 in Bali and the changed global environment in which we live. [80]

The 1999 New Agenda was updated to reflect a strategic shift in focus to unity and social cohesion in response to issues arising out of the threat of terrorism, and led to the development of community management strategies to 'manage existing and potential tensions' surrounding events such as terrorist attacks and the 2003 war in Iraq.[81] The principles underpinning the new policy statement were: responsibilities of all; respect for each person, fairness for each person, and benefits for all. The focus on terrorism and Islamic radicalism saw the creation of the Muslim Community Reference Group in September 2005, following the London bombings of 7 July, to 'provide advice on how government and the Muslim communities can work together more effectively to address intolerance and achieve a more inclusive society'.[82] Other initiatives included the development of a 'National Action Plan to Build on Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security' (National Action Plan) to 'address extremism and the promotion of violence and intolerance in Australia'. As the renamed Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) put it:

Supporting Australian Muslims to become more integrated and connected with the rest of the community, particularly in terms of jobs, educational attainment, and participation in community activities, is an important aspect of preventing extremism and violent ideologies gaining influence in Australia.[83]

Gwenda Tavan points out that as Australia's immigrant intake, in both permanent and temporary categories, increased significantly between the late 1990s and 2005 overall funding for multicultural, citizenship and settlement programs also increased in the years surrounding the release of this policy.[84] Following the Review of Settlement Services for Migrants and Humanitarian Entrants undertaken by the whole of government Settlement Services Taskforce in 2003, the Howard Government announced that it would commit an additional $100.9 million to improve settlement services over four years to implement 20 of 61 recommendations made in the Review.[85] In the 2003 policy statement, United in Diversity, the Minister for Citizenship and Multiculturalism, Gary Hardgrave, committed the Government to 'furthering harmonious community relations, ensuring equity in the provision of government services and harnessing the economic benefits of diversity'.[86] However, one critic of federal multicultural policy in this period, academic, Andrew Jakubowicz, argues that starting with the New Agenda of 1999, the original social justice aims of multicultural policy were replaced with more vague notions of equity, and that multicultural policies aimed to 'celebrate low level and local cultural collaborations; assert national social priorities; assert the importance of a cohesive national identity; make economic profitability a priority; marketise services' and recruit ethnic leaders with little influence or power.[87]

In 2007, DIAC officials offered this response when questioned about the removal of the word 'multicultural' from the Department's title:

The government's settlement and cultural diversity policy and programmes give effect to the four guiding principles of the Galbally report.

Under the policy, subject to the law, all Australians have the right to express their own culture and beliefs and have a reciprocal obligation to respect the right of others to do the same ...

Government funding for settlement services recognises the need for specific programmes, based on the principles of self-reliance and participation.[91]

At the Senate Budget Estimates hearings of May 2007 DIAC Secretary , Andrew Metcalfe, stated that:

Ministers use the word integration more frequently now than they may have previously, but the department's responsibilities in administering programs have not changed.[92]

He confirmed that multicultural and ethnic affairs continued to be within the Department's responsibilities under the relevant administrative arrangements orders and the Department continued to administer a number of cultural diversity programs, such as the 'Living in Harmony Program' and the 'National Action Plan to Build on Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security'.[93]

While in Opposition, Labor had given some indication of its policy direction on this issue. In response to the Howard Government's decision to dispense with the term 'multiculturalism' in the name of the Department of Immigration, the Labor Opposition proposed that it would establish two new offices in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to deal with issues of integration and multiculturalism, as well as citizenship. Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, stated:

Integration and multiculturalism must be recognised when we develop education and health policies, policies for the disabled, for the ageing, for workers, for children, and for mums and dads. And citizenship policies should reach all of us, not just migrants.[94]

In 2007, the Labor Opposition welcomed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's (HREOC) position paper on multiculturalism.[95] The Shadow Minister for Multiculturalism, Laurie Ferguson, declared that 'Labor's vision for a multicultural society is consistent with HREOC's stated objectives of promoting understanding, respect and friendship among racial and ethnic groups in Australia and to combat prejudices that lead to racial discrimination'.[96]

In December 2008, just over a year after coming into office, the Rudd Government announced the creation of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council (AMAC).[101] The Council was tasked with providing advice to the Government on 'practical approaches' to promoting social cohesion and overcoming racism and intolerance through positive engagement with diversity.[102]

The AMAC's first statement to government, 'The people of Australia' noted the enduring reality and necessity of multiculturalism to Australia. It made recommendations to government on issues including the importance of ensuring equal access to services for all Australians, the need to tackle discrimination, prejudice and racism, and the need to provide opportunities to all members of Australia's population for participation in community life. The statement emphasised that government has a responsibility to 'maintain a just, inclusive and cohesive society'.[103]

In welcoming this statement, the Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans, stated: 'The government is committed to ensuring that future multicultural policy is based on participation and inclusion. It is a policy that is about all Australians and it should seek to benefit us all'.[104]

I think that it's important that we recognise the diversity of Australian society but these days on both sides of politics we tend to talk more in terms of citizenship and I'm happy to keep doing that. I think that it's important that we acknowledge the diversity of Australia but I think it's also important to focus on the unity of Australia and that's what I want to do.[108]

The Gillard Government has met with criticism from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils (FECCA) for the removal of the term 'multiculturalism', with Council spokesperson, Pino Migliorino, indicating that 'there is a great deal of community concern about this'.[109]

Multicultural policy in NSW is administered by the Community Relations Commission for a multicultural NSW (CRC), formerly known as the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW.[113] The NSW Ethnic Affairs Commission was established as a permanent government authority in December 1979 as the first such body in Australia in response to a recommendation of the Participation Report of 1978. The Participation Report was written by the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW-a statutory body established under the Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1976 (NSW) and commencing in May 1977 to investigate and report on the functions and constitution of a permanent Commission and on ethnic affairs.[114] The Report introduced multiculturalism to the NSW policy context as a concept that went beyond the preservation of cultural heritage and emphasised the need to ensure access and equity and to provide the opportunity for cultural and linguistic groups to participate fully in the social, economic and political system of NSW.[115]

NSW multicultural policy has a legislative basis in the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 (NSW), which requires NSW public authorities to implement the principles of multiculturalism contained in the Act.[116] The Act was drafted in 2000 in response to the prevailing debate about the concept of multiculturalism and when passed into legislation made NSW the first Australian jurisdiction to enshrine multicultural principles in legislation.[117] The principles of multiculturalism enshrined in the Act are implemented through the Multicultural Policies and Services Program (MPSP).[118] The MPSP, previously known as the Ethnic Affairs Priorities (EAPS) Program was first established in 1983 by the Wran State Government in recognition of the need to include cultural diversity policies in the delivery of mainstream government services, and was the basis for multicultural policy implementation in the NSW public sector for the following 25 years, enjoying bipartisan support throughout that period.[119]

The 2000 Act expanded the range of public authorities to which multicultural service delivery obligations applied to include state-owned corporations and local government authorities in recognition of the critical role of local governments in delivering services to the community.[120] The policy framework established by the Act also expanded the concept of multiculturalism beyond its primary concern with access and equity issues to also act as 'a force in maintaining community harmony, strengthening commerce and business and underpinning social and economic capacity building'.[121]

A review of the EAPS program undertaken in 2008 found that, as compared with other Australian jurisdictions as well as countries with comparable multicultural frameworks, namely, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, the NSW multicultural policy framework was the most effective example of multicultural governance that they reviewed internationally and within Australia.[122]

Victorian multicultural policy is administered by the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC), formerly known as the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission.[123] Victoria's first Ethnic Affairs Commission was established as an independent statutory authority in 1983, following the publication of the 1983 Access and Equity report on the development of Victoria's ethnic affairs policies, by the Review Group to the Minister of Ethnic Affairs.[124] The main recommendations of the report were concerned with the establishment of a new Ethnic Affairs Commission to, among other functions, assist government and community organisations to achieve greater equity and participation in the delivery of mainstream services and in the distribution of resources.[125] The VMC was created ten years later following the passage of the Victorian Multicultural Commission Act 1993 (Vic) by the Kennett Government.[126]

The principles of multiculturalism in Victoria are enshrined in the Multicultural Victoria Act 2004 (Vic).[127] Victoria's legislative framework in support of multiculturalism also includes the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic), the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic), and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).[128]

On 14 March 2009 the Victorian Government launched a new multicultural policy statement, All of us: Victoria's multicultural policy, following a consultation process focused on the themes of advancing equality by supporting the human rights of all Victorians, supporting cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, fostering unity and promoting community harmony and boosting economic advantage.[129] The Victorian multicultural policy framework also includes the Multicultural Communications Policy, A Fairer Victoria: Progress and Next Steps (2006) and the Global Skills for Victoria 2008-2011 skilled migration strategy.[130] The Multicultural Communications policy commits Victorian Government departments to developing appropriate communications strategy for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, while A Fairer Victoria requires departments to develop Cultural Diversity Plans to enhance the provision of culturally sensitive services to all Victorian communities.

South Australia's multicultural policy is administered by Multicultural South Australia (MSA), which encompasses the 15 member South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission (SAMEAC).[131] The SAMEAC was established under the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1980 (SA) and its primary functions are to raise awareness and understanding about ethnic diversity in South Australia, and to advise government and public authorities about multiculturalism and ethnic affairs.[132] When it initially began operating in June 1981 the SAMEAC was primarily concerned with migrant settlement and welfare issues. Following the publication of the Totaro Report in 1983 the Commission was increased in size from eight to 11 members, and its functions broadened to allow the Commission a stronger role in ethnic rights advocacy and strengthen its advisory role.[133] Further amendments to the Act in 1989 increased the size of the Commission to 15 members and provided a legislative basis for the establishment of multiculturalism as a public policy.

Queensland's multicultural policy framework is administered by Multicultural Affairs Queensland (MAQ), which sits within the Department of Communities.[134] Queensland introduced its first multicultural policy in 1993, with subsequent policies being introduced by different State governments in 1996, 1998 and 2004.[135] The Queensland Government is currently reviewing its 2004 multicultural policy statement, Multicultural Queensland-making a world of difference, 'to ensure it remains relevant and responsive to the state's changing needs'.[136] Among other issues, the review is investigating the possibility of enacting legislation to affirm the state's multicultural principles.[137] MAQ anticipates the publication of a new policy and a report outlining the outcomes of community consultations carried out as part of the review to be published by late 2010.[138]

Multicultural policy in the Northern Territory is coordinated by the Office of Multicultural Affairs within the Department of the Chief Minister.[146] The Northern Territory introduced the Territory's first multicultural policy statement for migrant and ethnic Territorians, Building on the Territory's Diversity, in February 2005.[147] The policy expresses the Government's commitment to multiculturalism and sets out the principles of valuing diversity, fair access, encouraging participation and mutual respect.

Multicultural policy within the Australian Capital Territory is coordinated by the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) in the Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services.[148] The ACT Government launched a new ACT Multicultural Strategy 2010-2013, building on the ACT Multicultural Strategy 2006-2009.[149] The focus areas of the ACT Strategy are languages, children and young people, older people and aged care, women, refugees, asylum seekers and humanitarian entrants, intercultural harmony and religious acceptance.[150] The ACT Strategy makes specific reference to the ACT's Indigenous heritage and affirms the Government's commitment to the implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service delivery framework.[151] The Strategy also commits ACT Government agencies to reporting against actions and key performance indicators in the strategy each financial year.[152] Like Victoria, the ACT's multicultural policy is supported by the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), the first legislative bill of rights to be enacted in Australia.[153]

In the last ten years Australia, like a number of comparable countries in Europe and North America, has experienced public anxiety about the perceived threat to social cohesion from increasing ethno-cultural diversity.[154] Particularly in Australia and Europe much of this anxiety arose from the conflation of security issues and broader issues concerning the integration of immigrant communities.[155] These anxieties gave rise to debates about whether policies of multiculturalism were inhibiting integration and social cohesion and in fact contributing to segregation.[156]

Many of the issues that have animated recent public debates about multiculturalism evoke broader conceptual tensions and challenges raised by the concept and praxis of multiculturalism that have engaged theorists for a number of decades.[157] Most of these issues, such as the interaction between particular cultural practices and human rights discourses, the place of religion in the public sphere, the growth of religious extremism, or the persistence of inequalities faced by minority groups, relate to broader concerns about the meaning and relevance of culture, the parameters of multiculturalism within secular liberal democracies, the distribution of opportunities, resources and power in multicultural societies, and the construction of narratives of nationhood and national belonging. The following is a brief discussion of recent public debates about multiculturalism in Australia and a selection of countries in Europe and North America that draws on media commentary as well as the work of prominent researchers and academics writing in this field.

Historically, multiculturalism in Australia has been contested both as a concept and policy framework.[158] Mark Lopez, in his study of the origins of multiculturalism in Australia, argues that even amongst supporters of multiculturalism there was divergence between the approaches advocated by various schools of multicultural thought, classified by Lopez as including 'cultural pluralism', 'welfare multiculturalism', 'ethnic rights multiculturalism', and 'ethnic structural pluralism'.[159] Many conservative politicians and commentators in the 1980s echoed historian Geoffrey Blainey's view that multiculturalism encouraged 'ethnic tribalism,' and evidence emerged that there was confusion and resentment about aspects of the policy of multiculturalism among the general public, despite official attempts to characterise it as encompassing all Australians.[160] Conservative criticism in the 1980s, raised a number of issues, including: the cost of grants to ethnic organisations and the influence of ethnic lobbies; multiculturalism as a divisive policy; cultural relativism; the alleged stifling of debate and the fostering of 'political correctness' encouraged by bipartisanship on multiculturalism; and support for multiculturalism being limited to an 'elite' of tertiary educated people and ethnic lobby groups.[161] Around the time of the Bicentenary of European settlement in 1988 in particular, conservative criticism was concerned with preserving constructions of Australian nationhood and Australian culture which critics perceived as being undermined by multiculturalism.[162]

Lopez argues that by the mid-1990s some earlier proponents of multiculturalism such as Jerzy Zubrzycki and Sir James Gobbo, were engaging in 'post-multicultural' theorising by suggesting that 'multiculturalism' should be replaced with 'cultural diversity' as multiculturalism was a 'self-conscious' term that should no longer be necessary and had outlived its purpose.[163] Other commentators, such as Chandran Kukathas, adopted a theoretical position-self-described as classical liberal-to argue that multiculturalism was merely one aspect of pluralism, and that public institutions should be 'neutral' and concerned with ensuring tolerance and respect for individual rights and freedoms rather than enabling the interests of collective groups in society.[164]

Some have argued that debates about multiculturalism in Australia have often been racialised-that is, mediated through ethnic and racial categories of perception-and had the effect of questioning whether certain sectors of the Australian population were incompatible with, or posed a threat to, Australian society.[165] For example, in the 1980s and 1990s increases in Asian migration fuelled claims of an imminent 'Asian invasion', a theme which featured prominently in the rhetoric of Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party in their rise to public attention in the 1996 and 1998 federal elections.[166] Upon her entry into Federal Parliament, Hanson was outspoken on what she perceived to be undue concessions to 'industries' 'servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups', evoking fears of 'separatism' and arguing that, '[t]o survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag'. In her first speech to Federal Parliament, Hanson stated:

Immigration and multiculturalism are issues that this government is trying to address, but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians ... They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united.[167]

Every nation has the right to effectively control its borders and to decide who comes here and under what circumstances, and Australia has no intention of surrendering or compromising that right ... The problem does lie in the ease of entry of many people from Middle Eastern and other countries to neighbouring countries of Indonesia and their relative ease of transfer to Indonesia and then through Indonesia onto boats and down to Australia. Something has to be done to stop that flow of humanity. [175]

Key international events following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, such as the war in Iraq, the 2002 Bali bombings and 2005 London bombings, played a role in shaping public attitudes towards ethnic and cultural diversity and towards parts of the Australian population.[180] For example, a study conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in 2004, found that in the aftermath of these events many Arab and Muslim Australians, as well as some other minority groups, were subjected to heightened acts of prejudice, vilification and violence, that left them feeling isolated and fearful.[181]

The Howard Government's last policy statement on multiculturalism, released in 2003, was framed in the context of prevailing security concerns about the threat of terrorism.[182] Entitled United in Diversity, the statement focused on the need to foster 'national unity', seemingly in reaction to apprehensions about the perceived threats of diversity.[183] Stating that 'the key to national unity is citizenship', in the following year the Government undertook to revise the process for acquiring Australian citizenship and in so doing initiated a debate on the values that citizens were expected to subscribe to as a precondition of belonging in the national community.[184] In an echo of the security concerns informing its multiculturalism policy, the Government stated that 'there are threats to Australia and our way of life in the post-9/11 era' and that the articulation of a 'coherent set of national values' will 'help protect Australia in these uncertain times'.[185] Central to the Howard Government's reform of citizenship laws was the introduction of a new citizenship test, focused on ensuring 'cohesion and integration'.[186] The debate about 'Australian values' and citizenship gave voice to existing anxieties about the commitment of portions of the Australian population to the 'core values' of Australian society.[187]

In the broader global and national climate of insecurity and ambivalence towards ethno-cultural diversity, in December 2005 news of the now notorious Cronulla riots confronted national and international audiences with reports of alcohol-fuelled violence against people of 'Middle-Eastern appearance' by demonstrators clad in Australian flags, and violent reprisal attacks that followed.[188] These events-largely originating in localised grievances and tensions-constituted a relatively rare manifestation of ethnically-charged violence that lent further fuel to debates about the role of multiculturalism in the management of cultural diversity in Australia.[189]

Amidst mounting public anxiety about the management of ethno-cultural diversity the term 'multiculturalism' itself attracted considerable ambivalence, even hostility from some political leaders. As the culmination of years of criticism of multiculturalism among some conservative politicians, members of the Howard Government suggested it was an outdated or 'redundant' term.[190] Then Prime Minister, John Howard, advocated a shift away from multiculturalism and back to a focus on integration or assimilation.[191] In a 2007 radio interview Prime Minister Howard said that he unapologetically used the term assimilation in the context of 'Muslim assimilation':

Well there's every reason to try and assimilate, and I unapologetically use that word, a section of the community, a tiny minority of whose members have caused concern and after all once somebody's become a citizen of this country the best thing we can do is to absorb them into the mainstream.[192]

In the immediate aftermath of the events at Cronulla in 2005 a number of community building initiatives were established to heal the fissures exposed by the incident.[193] Amongst the debates that ensued in the following months and years, academic, Jock Collins, offered this assessment:

... inter-ethnic relations in Australian cities are surprisingly strong and ... social cohesion is the norm in Sydney, with the Cronulla riots the aberration. Despite this sobering fact, the Cronulla riots are serious enough to remind governments of the responsibilities of managing cultural diversity and resisting racist undercurrents.[194]

However, evidence suggests that new challenges continue to emerge from changes to Australia's migrant intake and the resulting growth of new and emerging communities.[205] At the height of the Howard Government's shift away from the term multiculturalism, attention was drawn to the need to provide adequate settlement support to African migrants in order to ensure that the community settled into the Australian community.[206] In June 2010, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) published the results of a three-year study on African Australians and their experiences of social inclusion and human rights in Australia.[207] The study revealed that many African Australians, particularly those who have migrated to Australia within approximately the last 15 years, 'experience widespread direct and indirect racism as part of their daily lives', in a range of areas from employment, to housing, education, health services and their connection with the justice system.[208] The study found that these experiences acted as barriers to settlement and inclusion.[209] After a decade of exponential growth in the numbers of international students entering Australia, in 2009, reports of violence against Indian international students provoked protests in Melbourne and Sydney and triggered reviews of a range of issues affecting international students amidst debates about the role of racism in the attacks.[210] At the end of August 2010, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UN CERD) in its response to Australia's fifteenth to seventeenth periodic reports to the Committee drew particular attention to the multiple forms of discrimination experienced by some Indigenous Australians, African Australians, Muslim Australians, international students and asylum seekers.[211] In its concluding observations the Committee encouraged Australia to 'develop and implement an updated comprehensive multicultural policy that reflects its increasingly ethnically and culturally diverse society', and recommended that Australia strengthen the race and cultural dimensions of its Social Inclusion Agenda.[212] These examples suggest that the changing nature of migration to Australia, and resulting changes in Australian society pose new challenges that necessitate a renewed engagement with discourses of diversity and pluralism.[213]

In its first statement on Australia's multicultural future, the AMAC stated the following in relation to the importance of including multiculturalism in the nation's political vernacular:

The multicultural character of Australia is central to the Australian story. Governments should tell this story. Our political leaders should have no difficulty in presenting 'multicultural Australia' as an important part of the 'national identity' they frequently invoke. They should consider stressing Australia's cultural diversity on more occasions than explicitly multicultural ones: and when they do this, they should add that as well as diversity, multiculturalism brings innovation, ideas, skills, energy and achievement and makes us richer in all kinds of ways, including our 'identity'...The Australian Government should consider mechanisms to promote an inclusive view of multicultural Australia.[214]

It remains to be seen whether and how the current and future Australian governments will engage with the concept of multiculturalism in responding to the evolving nature of Australian society.

Canada was the first country to pioneer a formal policy of multiculturalism in the 1970s-a policy which came to be subsequently appropriated by a number of other countries, including Australia.[215] Language and culture had long been highly contested issues in Canada, with separatist movements in Quebec after 1945 leading to the adoption of an official policy of bilingualism.[216] Markus, Jupp and McDonald note that unlike Australia, Canada's long history of immigration led to the establishment of a range of immigrant communities, such as Germans and Ukrainians in the prairies, and even Chinese, Indians and Japanese on the West Coast, despite the introduction of a 'White Canada' policy in the 1920s.[217] While European immigration was clearly privileged up to the 1960s, the removal of racially discriminatory selection criteria in 1967 produced significant changes in the ethnic composition of Canadian society.[218] In 1971 the Canadian government pioneered the introduction of an official policy of multiculturalism, aimed at maintaining ethnic languages and cultures and combating racism.[219] The 1971 policy also confirmed the rights of Canadian Aboriginal people and confirmed the status of Canada's two official languages.[220] Canadian multiculturalism was given a constitutional and legislative basis, with support for ethnic diversity being enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, and the passing of the federal Multiculturalism Act in 1988.[221] Multiculturalism, 'as a value and national symbol, one that is entrenched in the Constitution and given practical expression through federal and provincial legislation' has been characterised as being central to Canadian democracy.[222]

However, as elsewhere, multiculturalism has been a contested policy in Canada, with supporters arguing that it promotes the integration of immigrants, and a sense of belonging and national pride, and detractors arguing that it promotes balkanization and overly emphasises differences between groups.[223] Public opinion towards multiculturalism became more ambivalent in the 1980s, and in the late 1990s and into 2000 Canadian governments began cutting back funding to multiculturalism and scaled back the provision of settlement services.[224] Irrespective of this, academic, Will Kymlicka argues that the results of recent research 'provide strong evidence that multiculturalism in Canada promotes integration and citizenship, both through its effect on attitudes, self-understanding and identity at the individual level and through its effect on institutions at the social level', and indeed that, 'immigrants to Canada and visible or religious minorities fare better than most, if not all, other Western democracies'.[225] However, another Canadian academic, Jeffrey Reitz also argues that there is evidence to suggest that 'persistent diversity' has the potential to both 'promote and slow' the process of integration, pointing to a need for multicultural policy to 'consider ways to establish stronger exchanges among Canada's cultural communities'.[226] Markus, Jupp and McDonald point to the manifestly bicultural nature of Canada, the existence of established immigrant communities, and the existence of treaties with Canada's First Nations peoples as conditions that were conducive to the introduction of multiculturalism in Canada.[227] The historical context for the introduction of multiculturalism may well have a bearing on the relatively high levels of support for multiculturalism in Canada, with the current conservative Harper Government also continuing to express its support for the policy.[228]

While being one of the most multicultural societies in the world the United States (US) is relatively idiosyncratic and not easily comparable to other immigrant-receiving societies as relations between ethno-cultural groups and the resulting public debates are products of a complex and turbulent history of race relations, and complex political and legal structures.[229] The US has experienced many centuries of immigration, with mass immigration to the US occurring until the 1920s. Following a period of restricted immigration of Europeans and Canadians for permanent residency, and Mexicans for temporary work, between the 1920s and 1960s, national origin quotas were abolished in 1965. As a result, by the 1990s European immigrants constituted 15 percent of 'legal' immigration to the US, while Asians constituted 31 per cent, and Africans 4 per cent. However, contemporary immigration to the United States is dominated by Latino immigration, largely from Mexico.[230]

National identity and multiculturalism have been characterised as 'perennial issues' in Canada that have become particularly 'thorny' 'in light of broader international concerns about terrorism, security and the successful integration of Muslim immigrants in Western liberal democracies'.[248] Anxieties surrounding identity and the treatment of ethnic minorities have assumed particular salience in the Francophone province of Quebec, where public debates, such as that surrounding the 'reasonable accommodation' of cultural differences and incidents of civil disturbance have to some extent mirrored developments and attitudes that have become ascendant across the Atlantic in Europe.[249] Will Kymlicka argues that despite purported fears of a 'European-style' retreat from multiculturalism occurring in Canada, much of the disaffection with multiculturalism has been largely restricted to Quebec:

No other province has had the same explosive debate about religious accommodations, or the same attempt to win votes by appealing to anti-immigrant views, or the same calls for abandoning multiculturalism policies... This is not surprising, since multiculturalism has always been less popular in Quebec than in other provinces, largely due to Québecers' perception of themselves as a vulnerable minority within the anglophone sea of North America... and partly because the anti-multiculturalist debates in France have more resonance in Quebec than in the rest of the country.[250]

Kymlicka argues that comparisons of Canadian multiculturalism with other parts of the world, such as Europe, are misleading and recent research suggests that there is no evidence to justify a retreat from multiculturalism in Canada.[251] Rather, he argues, the most urgent issues in Canadian multiculturalism are: 'multicultural preparedness' for issues presented by religious diversity; a debate about the role of the media in multiculturalism, and the promotion of responsible journalism; the relationship between multiculturalism and bilingualism and the Francophone presence, and the Aboriginal rights of the First Nations; and, the declining economic performance of recent immigrants.[252]

Unlike traditional countries of immigration, such as Australia, Canada or the United States, which encouraged immigration and permanent settlement, and where immigration has been a central part of the nation-building process, immigration has historically played a different role in most European countries. Academics, Stephen Castles and Mark Miller note:

Virtually all of Northern and Western Europe became areas of labour immigration and subsequent settlement after 1945. Since the 1980s, Southern European states like Greece, Italy and Spain, which for a long time were zones of emigration, have become immigration areas. Today Central and Eastern European states, particularly Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, are becoming immigration lands.[253]

Migration has been the key contributor to demographic change in many European countries, through both direct increases as a result of immigration and the natural increase of populations of immigrant origin. By 2006, it was estimated that almost two thirds of immigrants in Britain, the Netherlands and France were from non-European countries.[254]

At a regional level European Union policy on dealing with ethnic and cultural diversity resulting from immigration is explicitly focused on integration rather than multiculturalism. The European Commission agreed to an integration framework in 2005 called A common agenda for integration: framework for the integration of third-country nationals in the European Union.[255] Individual states in Europe approach ethnic and cultural diversity in a variety of ways that are mediated by the historical, political and institutional contexts of the states concerned.[256]

In contrast to countries which explicitly recognise and endorse cultural pluralism, France has traditionally adopted an assimilationist model, rooted in French republican ideology which rejects institutional recognition of cultural or group differences in the public sphere.[261] However, there is some evidence that in recent years there has been increased understanding of the fact that social cohesion necessitates enhanced efforts by government to tackle ethnic discrimination.[262]

Other European countries, including those which adopted 'guestworker' models in the post World War II period such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland, as well as Scandinavian countries like Denmark, have only recently come to see themselves as countries of immigration.[263] Germany, a country that has among the highest immigration rates in Europe, had until the late 1990s maintained that it was 'not a country of immigration'.[264] At the national level multiculturalism was rejected as being a threat to national unity.[265] Official denial of its status as a country of immigrant settlement and lack of integration policies over a number of decades led to the exclusion and marginalisation of migrants and their descendents in German society. In spite of the rejection of multiculturalism at the national level, some local government authorities responded to the reality of ethnic diversity and the presence of migrant communities with the result that 'local provision of special social and education services for minorities is widespread'.[266] In recent years Germany has moved to deal with the consequences of the permanent settlement of migrants and the resulting emergence of a multiethnic society by developing political consensus on the need for integration measures supported by the state.[267]

In an international security environment that was concerned with the rise of Islamic extremism and the threat of terrorism, events such as the London bombings of 2005 and the Madrid train bombings of 2004 were-in the context of broader issues about the parameters of diversity, and the place of religion in secular liberal democracies- seen as 'evidence of the incompatibility of Muslim values with modern European societies'.[275] However, concerns about the place of Muslim communities in Europe and the UK are not limited to relatively recent fears about the growth of extremism, but are also related to more far-reaching and deep-seated issues of socioeconomic and ethnic marginalisation facing Muslim minorities as well as other immigrant communities. Both the United Kingdom and France have at various times in recent decades experienced civil unrest which was symptomatic of the socioeconomic and ethnic exclusion of immigrant minorities.[276]

While the community cohesion agenda was later expanded to deal with the impact of dramatic increases in migration from Eastern Europe following the expansion of the EU in 2004, the initial drivers of the community cohesion agenda-the riots of 2001 and the threat of terrorism- were both centred on second-generation youth of immigrant background rather than new migrants.[280] The emergence of terrorism as a security issue led particularly to a focus on the integration of Britain's Muslim communities, including issues of persistent inequality and discrimination faced by British Muslims. The Home Office acknowledged that 'links between social deprivation and extremism is [sic] not simple cause and effect', but there was a need to address the underlying 'discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion suffered by Muslim communities (as by other minorities)'.[281]

In November 2005, the outer suburbs (known as les banlieues) of Paris and other large cities in France experienced severe rioting, as young people of immigrant background protested policing practices, entrenched discrimination and disadvantage faced particularly by young people of African and North African background.[282] Many young people of immigrant background in France are said to face 'high unemployment, low chances of social ascension and discrimination'.[283] The 2005 riots focused public attention on the issue of ethnic discrimination and high unemployment rates among migrants as they 'were considered by many the proof that the French model had failed because the official rejection of ethnic identities could not help to prevent discrimination on these grounds'.[284] The 2005 riots were not the first riots motivated by issues emanating from the disenfranchisement of French youth of immigrant background to occur in French cities, and were followed by further riots in late 2007.[285]

In the Netherlands-a country seen as 'the European bastion of toleration and multiculturalism through the second half of the twentieth century'-by the beginning of the twenty-first century there was a perception that integration policies for minorities had failed, that multiculturalism was a threat to social cohesion and the Muslim minority in particular posed a problem for Dutch society.[286] Public debates about the integration of immigrants, and Muslim immigrants in particular, were further sustained by the deaths of populist right-wing politician Pym Fortuyn and controversial film maker Theo van Gogh (the former at the hands of an animal rights activist, and the latter at the hands of a second-generation Dutch-Moroccan extremist).[287] After years of agitation on issues to do with immigration the Dutch elections of June 2010 saw far-right nationalist politician Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party (PVV) unexpectedly finishing with the third highest number of seats (24).[288] Wilders, who pledged to 'end the Islamisation of the Netherlands', including by ending immigration from Muslim countries, and banning mosques and the Koran, is being tried for inciting racial hatred against Muslims.[289] Court proceedings against Wilders commenced on 4 October 2010, just days after Wilders won concessions from the incoming Dutch minority government on a number of the PVV's key policy platforms.[290]

A number of European countries, including the Netherlands, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Austria and Denmark, responded to the challenges presented by immigrant integration by introducing more restrictive immigration and citizenship measures.[291] Some argued that the aim of introducing tighter measures was to exclude security risks and target Islamic groups in particular.[292] In many cases such measures forged a nexus between integration, and immigration and citizenship by imposing mandatory civic integration programmes and tests as a prerequisite for the acquisition of residential or citizenship status within the receiving country.[293] In the Netherlands, it has been argued that both immigration and integration were made more restrictive, under the assumption that restrictive policies are necessary to ensure successful integration.[294] As academic, Dora Kostakopoulou, puts it:

In official discourses at the national and, increasingly at European levels, civic integration is presented as the required antidote to the alleged failures of multiculturalism and the alleged creation of parallel worlds within societies owing to increasing ethnic and cultural heterogeneity.[295]

The social conflicts from which some EU member states are currently suffering represent a direct expression of opposition to a conservative notion of 'we' and a homogenous and anchored 'national identity'. They are also an intense reaction towards restrictive immigration, citizenship and integration policies and discourses.[299]

Europe is currently hallmarked by greater mobility of its populations, for many different reasons, and by the emergence of minorities. Every state needs to learn to take an intercultural approach to dealing with the multicultural society which is developing.

Multiculturalism was a policy introduced in Australia to deal with the settlement needs of migrant communities and was conceived as a means of recognising the preservation of cultural identities and achieving social justice and social cohesion. However, in 30 years of the policy's existence at various levels of government, both in Australia and overseas, the policy and concept of multiculturalism have undergone considerable debate and change in both governmental and academic discourses. Irrespective of debates and changing political and community perceptions of the term 'multiculturalism', societies have inexorably become more diverse in that period, with the result that, as recognised by the NSW Community Relations Commission, in March 2010, the need for the government services and programs established under policies of multiculturalism has not diminished, but is only expected to increase.[307]

Globally, migration is a growing and increasingly complex phenomenon as people are moving and forging connections between countries in rapidly evolving ways.[308] In the context of the growing scale and changing nature of migration there is merit in considering the role that multiculturalism has played in meeting the needs of a diverse population and mediating cultural relations in Australia. In considering the utility of a concept and policy like multiculturalism questions arise as to whether it can be further developed, or whether there is a need to find new concepts in the national vernacular to articulate the contemporary nature of diversity and change in Australian society.

In order to understand the impact of multiculturalism on Australian society and to assess the ongoing relevance and potential of multiculturalism for dealing with contemporary challenges there is a need for clarification in public debate of the nature and basis of multiculturalism as it was appropriated and developed in Australia. As government policy in Australia, multiculturalism was primarily concerned with cultural and linguistic diversity; while recognising the need to cater to the linguistic needs of ethnic communities, unlike Canada, multiculturalism in Australia was always premised on the supremacy of the English language; and it was premised on the supremacy of existing institutions and the rule of law.[309]

As Australian Government policy articulated the relevance of multiculturalism to all Australians in the 1980s, multiculturalism began to grow beyond its origins as an element of settlement policy to become a pillar of Australia's nation-building narratives. While programs and services under policies of multiculturalism have been serving migrants entering Australia from different parts of the world for decades, today there are multiple generations of Australians of various cultural backgrounds who have grown up in societies marked by diversity, and growing global connectedness, and who as a result have increasingly complex claims of identity and belonging. Can the concept of multiculturalism contribute to expanding the capacity of Australian identity narratives to encompass multiple forms of belonging? Does multiculturalism have a role to play in enabling the demographic diversity of the Australian community to be represented and reflected in cultural, institutional and governmental structures of Australian society? Do the experiences of other countries illuminate the role that discursive narratives of multiculturalism play in articulating and increasing acceptance of, and engagement with, multicultural realities?

Many of the issues faced by multicultural societies today transcend national borders and raise broader questions about how liberal democracies are to respond to the challenges of diversity. As a concept and policy that was originally concerned primarily with linguistic and cultural diversity both in Australia and overseas, how can multiculturalism deal with growing religious diversity and the issues raised by religious expression, often mediated by cultural practices, in secular liberal democratic spaces? Does multiculturalism have a role to play in addressing enduring social inequalities and the challenges faced by minority communities in diverse societies such as Australia and elsewhere? What is the role of the media and educational institutions in contributing to understanding across differences in multicultural societies?

Public discourse has played a central role in shaping the way that Australians have come to view multiculturalism as a concept and policy. In the context of increasing diversity, the question remains as to how multiculturalism can be meaningfully engaged with, and whether such engagement can contribute to the development of new concepts that can enable more productive public discourses about the challenges and transformations resulting from increasing diversity.

1973: A Grassby, A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future, speech made at the Cairnmillar Institute's Symposium Strategy: Australia for Tomorrow, 11 August 1973, viewed 17 August 2010, http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/grassby_1.pdf

1977: The Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, Australia as a multicultural society, Submission to the Australian Population and Immigration Council on the Green Paper, Immigration Policies and Australia's Population, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1977, pp. 1-2 and 4-19, viewed 17 August 2010, http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/auscouncilpop_2.pdf

1982: Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, Multiculturalism for all Australians-our developing nationhood, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1982.

2003: Australian Government, Multicultural Australia: united in diversity: updating the 1999 New agenda for multicultural Australia: strategic directions for 2003-2006, Canberra, 2003, viewed 18 August 2010, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/settle/_pdf/united_diversity.pdf

For a list of key multicultural reports see DIAC, 'Multicultural publications', DIAC website, viewed 20 August 2010, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/

Appendix 2: Key Australian Government multicultural institutions

Australian Institute for Multicultural Affairs (AIMA): In 1979, the Fraser Government established the AIMA under the Australian Institute for Multicultural Affairs Act 1979 (Cth) (AIMA Act), in response to the Galbally Report recommendation for the establishment of an institute to provide advice and information on multiculturalism.[310] The AIMA was abolished and the AIMA Act repealed by the Hawke Labor Government in 1986.[311]

Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA): The Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) was established in 1987 within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, in response to a recommendation arising from the Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services in 1986. In 1996 OMA was absorbed into the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

National Multicultural Advisory Council (NMAC): The NMAC was established in 1994 by the Keating Government for a term of three years. In 1997 the Howard government revised the membership of the council and allocated new terms of reference for a further three years.[312] The NMAC lapsed in 2006 and was not reappointed by the Howard Government.[313]

Australian Multicultural Advisory Council (AMAC): The Rudd Labor Government announced the creation of the AMAC on 17 December 2008. Under its terms of reference the 16 member Council is to provide advice to the Minister for Immigration and the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services on: social cohesion issues relating to cultural and religious diversity; overcoming intolerance and racism in Australia; communicating the social and economic benefits of Australia's cultural diversity to the broad community; and the social and civic participation of migrants in Australian society. In April 2010, the AMAC released its statement of advice to government, entitled 'The people of Australia: The Australian Multicultural Advisory Council's statement on cultural diversity and recommendations to government'.[315] In June 2010, the AMAC was reappointed by the Government for a second term from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012.[316]

Community Relations Commission for a multicultural NSW: http://www.crc.nsw.gov.au/home

Victorian Multicultural Commission: http://multicultural.vic.gov.au/

Multicultural South Australia: http://www.multicultural.sa.gov.au/

P Totaro and D Faulkner, A report to the Minister of Ethnic Affairs on the review of the South Australian Ethnic Affairs Commission, n.p. Adelaide, 1983.

Multicultural Affairs Queensland: http://www.multicultural.qld.gov.au/

Multicultural Tasmania: http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/cdd/multitas

Office of Multicultural Interests (Western Australia): http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/

Department of the Chief Minister (Northern Territory): http://www.dcm.nt.gov.au/strong_community/a_great_place_to_live_and_work/multicultural_affairs

Office of Multicultural Affairs (Australian Capital Territory): http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/matsia/multicultural

Archived multicultural documents are available from the 'Making Multicultural Australia' website: NSW Board of Studies, NSW Department of Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Making multicultural Australia for the 21st century, Making Multicultural Australia website, viewed 20 August 2010, http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/

A Markus, J Jupp and P McDonald, Australia's Immigration Revolution, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2009.

Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), COMPAS website, 2010, viewed 20 September 2010, http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/home/

Council of Europe, 'Website of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)', ECRI website, Strasbourg, 2010, viewed 26 August 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/default_en.asp

C Slade and M Mollering (eds), From migrant to citizen: testing language, testing culture, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010.

European Commission, 'European Website on Integration', European Commission website, viewed 24 March 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/index.cfm

FORUM Institute for Multicultural Affairs, 'The Gateway to Dutch Integration Affairs', FORUM website, viewed 26 July 2010, http://www.forum.nl/international/

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), Face the Facts, multiculturalism section, 2005.

Institute for Cultural Diversity, 'Cultural diversity-a core Australian value', ICD website, viewed 20 August 2010, http://www.culturaldiversity.net.au/

International Metropolis Project, International Metropolis Project website, 22 July 2010, viewed 20 August 2010, http://international.metropolis.net/index_e.html

J Higley, J Nieuwenhuysen and S Neerup (eds), Nations of immigrants: Australia and the USA compared, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2009.

J Jupp, From White Australia to Woomera, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.

J Jupp and J Nieuwenhuysen (eds), Social cohesion in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2007

J Jupp (ed.), The Australian People: an encyclopaedia of the nation its people and their origins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.

M Lopez, The origins of multiculturalism in Australia politics 1945-1975, Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, 2000.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Migration Outlook, OECD, 2010.

Runnymede Trust, 'Runnymede: intelligence for a multi-ethnic Britain', Runnymede Trust website, 2010, viewed 20 September 2010, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/

S Castles and M Miller, The age of migration: international population movements in the modern world, (4th edition), Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009

T Modood, Multiculturalism-a civic idea, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007

U Segal, D Elliot and N Mayadas (eds), Migration worldwide: policies, practices, and trends, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multiculturalism: a review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elsa Koleth Social Policy Section 8 October 2010 The author would like to thank Dr James Jupp and colleagues Dr Luke Buckmaster and Dr Mark Rodrigues for their insightful comments and assistance in the preparation of this paper. Multiculturalism has been a contested policy and concept since its introduction in Australia in the 1970s.

# data[].attributes.body
Turkey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration History from Turkey to Victoria

Few Turks came to Victoria in the 19th century. Ten Turkish men were recorded in Victoria in 1871, and by the time of Australia's Federation, in 1901, the community numbered just 40.

When World War I broke out, Turks in Australia were interned as enemy aliens. The 1920 Enemy Aliens Act prohibited more Turks entering Australia for five years, and "Asiatic Turks" continued to be prohibited from entry to Australia under the White Australia Policy. "European Turks", were able to immigrate.

After World War II, Turkish immigration to Australia did not increase dramatically, and by 1966 there were still less than 1,000 Turkey-born people in Victoria. Declining emigration from Europe promoted the Australian Government to consider accepting Turkish immigrants. At the same time, the Turkish Government was encouraging emigration to solve unemployment and over-crowding. In 1967 Turkey became the first country beyond Western Europe to sign an Assisted Passage agreement with Australia. The Turkey-born community in Victoria increased from 970 in 1966 to 5,383 in 1971. Many Turkish immigrants were met with hostility in Australia, as the first post-war immigrants who were non-Christian and of non-European descent.

The annual intake of assisted settlers from Turkey remained consistently high until 1974, when family reunion became the main reason for immigration. In 2011 the Turkey-born population of Victoria was 16,491 - around half of Australia's entire Turkey-born population. Over 79% of those in Victoria were Muslim, while 7% were Christian. Turkish was spoken at home by 86% of the community.

Today the community lives mainly in Coburg and Broadmeadows, in the area of the Broadmeadows Migrant Hostel which initially housed Turkish immigrants upon arrival. A third of those employed work in trades, production, transport and labouring roles, and a quarter work in professional roles.

The preservation of culture is important to the Turkish community, supported by organisations such as the Australian Turkish Cultural Association, soccer clubs, religious groups and political associations. Community celebrations include an annual ball to celebrate Turkish Republic Day on 29 October.

Immigration History from Turkey (Turkish) to Victoria

19. yüzyılda Viktorya'ya birkaç Türk geldi. 1871 yılında Viktorya'da on Türk kayıtlı iken, Avustralya Federasyonu'nun kurulduğu 1901 yılına kadar, Türk toplumunun nüfusu sadece 40 idi.

Birinci dünya savaşı çıktığında, Avustralyada'ki Türkler düşman bir ülkeden oldukları gerekçesiyle gözaltına alındı. 1920 yılında yürürlüğe giren Düşman Ülkeden Olanlar Yasası, Avustralya'ya daha fazla Türk'ün giriş yapmasını beş yıl boyunca yasaklarken, Beyaz Avustralya Politikası nedeniyle de "Asyalı Türkler"in Avustralya'ya giriş yasağı devam ediyordu. "Avrupalı Türkler"in göçüne izin veriliyordu.

İkinci dünya savaşının ardından Türkler'in Avustralya'ya göçü çarpıcı bir şekilde artış göstermedi. 1966 yılına gelindiğinde Viktorya'daki Türkiye doğumluların sayısı hala 1,000 kişiden azdı. Avrupa'dan gelen göçmen sayısındaki azalma, Avustralya Hükümeti'nin Türk göçmenlerin kabulü üzerinde düşünmesine yol açtı. Bu arada Türk Hükümeti de işsizlik ve kalabalıklaşan nüfus sorununu çözmek için dışgöçü destekliyordu. Türkiye, 1967 yılında Avustralya ile bir Destek Anlaşması'nı imzalayan, Batı Avrupa dışındaki ilk ülke oldu. Viktorya'daki Türkiye doğumluların sayısı, 1966'da 970 kişiyken 1971 yılında 5,383'e yükseldi. Savaş sonrasının, Hristiyan ve Avrupalı olmayan ilk göçmenleri olarak, birçok Türk göçmen Avustralya'da düşmanca bir tavırla karşılandı.

Bugün toplum genellikle Coburg'ta, ve geldikleri yıllarda Türk göçmenlerin ilk kaldığı yer olan Broadmeadows Migrant Hostel'in bulunduğu, Broadmeadows'ta oturmaktadır. Ticaret çalışanların üçte birinden fazlası, üretim ve nakliye sektörlerinde görev yapanlarla, işçi olarak çalışanlar oluştururken, dörtte birini de profesyonel kişiler oluşturmaktadır.

Bugün toplum genellikle Coburg'ta, ve geldikleri yıllarda Türk göçmenlerin ilk kaldığı yer olan Broadmeadows Migrant Hostel'in bulunduğu, Broadmeadows'ta oturmaktadır. Çalışanların yarıdan fazlasını ticaret, üretim ve nakliye sektörlerinde görev yapanlarla, işçi olarak çalışanlar oluştururken, dörtte birini de profesyonel kişiler oluşturmaktadır.

Avustralya Türkiyeliler Kültür Derneği, futbol kulüpleri, dinsel gruplar ve siyasi dernekler gibi kuruluşlar tarafından desteklenen Türk toplumu için, kultürel değerlerin korunması önemlidir. Toplumun, her yıl 29 Ekim Cumhuriyet Bayramı'nı kutlamak amacıyla gerçekleştirilen balo gibi, kutlama etkinlikleri bulunmaktadır.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few Turks came to Victoria in the 19th century. Ten Turkish men were recorded in Victoria in 1871, and by the time of Australia's Federation, in 1901, the community numbered just 40. When World War I broke out, Turks in Australia were interned as enemy aliens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration History from Iraq to Victoria

Iraqi-born Victorians were first identified in the Victorian census in 1976, when 189 people were recorded. Within five years the community had almost tripled to 408, and by 1991 had increased to 603. Many escaped hardships caused by the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which ended in 1988.

The outbreak of the Gulf War in 1991 led a large number of people to flee Iraq into the neighbouring countries. Some refugees lived in processing camps for up to five years before being accepted into Australia under the Special Humanitarian Program. During this period the visas of around 400 Iraqis living in Australia were extended until the end of the Gulf War.

Iraqi immigration to Australia peaked between 1992 and 1995, with the Iraq-born population in Victoria increasing to 3,492 by 1996. By 2016 this community had grown to 18,641 people. Most recent Iraqi immigrants have arrived under the Family and Skilled Migration categories. Some Iraqis have sought refugee status after arrival in Australia, and have been detained pending processing.

Today the Iraq-born community in Victoria is culturally diverse, with settlers from many ethnic and cultural backgrounds including Arabs, Kurds, Tourkomans, Chaldeans and Assyrians. Although Islam is the dominant religion in Iraq, only 28% of the Iraq-born immigrants living in Victoria are Muslim; 60% are Christian.

Nearly half of the Iraqi community speaks Arabic at home; only 3% speaks English, reflecting the number of recent immigrants in the community. Over half of Iraq-born Victorians are aged under 35, and only 19% are aged over fifty. Of those in the workforce, a third are employed as labourers and related workers within the manufacturing industry, whilst another third are employed in professional positions. The community is supported by organisations such as the Australian Iraqi Forum several religious or cultural associations.

Immigration History from Iraq (Arabic) to Victoria

في إحصائية فيكتوريا لعام 1976 تمّ للمرة الأولى التعريف بمواليد فيكتوريا من العراقيين عندما تسجيل 189 شخصاً. وفي غضون خمس سنوات إزداد عددهم بنسبة ثلاثة أضعاف ليصبح 408 شخصاً. وبحلول عام 1991 إرتفع العدد إلى 603. وكان العديد من العراقيين قد فرّوا من الضائقة التي سببتها حرب الثماني سنوات بين العراق وإيران والتي انتهت في عام 1988.

وقد أدّى اندلاع حرب الخليج في عام 1991 إلى فرار عدد كبير من العراقيين إلى الدول المجاورة. وعاش بعض اللاجئين في المخيمات لمدة خمس سنوات قبل قبولهم في أستراليا بموجب برنامج إنساني خاص. وخلال تلك الفترة تمّ تمديد إقامة حوالي 400 عراقي في أستراليا حتى نهاية حرب الخليج.

بلغت الهجرة العراقية إلى أستراليا ذروتها بين عامي 1992 و1995، وتزايد عدد المواليد العراقيين في فيكتوريا إلى 3.492 في عام 1996. بحلول عام 2011، تزايدت أعداد الجالية إلى 12.795 فرداً. وقد وصل معظم المهاجرين العراقيين في الآونة الأخيرة في إطار هجرة الأسرة وذوي المهارات. وقد سعى بعض العراقيين للحصول على حق اللجوء بعد وصولهم إلى أستراليا، وتم احتجازهم على ذمة المحاكمة.

اليوم أصبحت الجالية العراقية الموجودة في فيكتوريا متنوعة ثقافيا، نظرا لوجود مستوطنين من مختلف الخلفيات العرقية والثقافية بما في ذلك العرب والأكراد والتركمانيين والكلدان والآشوريين. وعلى الرغم من أن الإسلام هو الدين السائد في العراق، إلا أن 28٪ فقط من المهاجرين العراقيين الذين يعيشون في فيكتوريا مسلمون، و60٪ منهم مسيحيون.

ما يقرب من نصف الجالية العراقية تتحدث العربية في المنازل، ويتحدث 3٪ فقط الإنجليزية، مما ينعكس على عدد المهاجرين الجدد في الجالية. أكثر من نصف العراقيين المولودين في فيكتوريا تقع أعمارهم تحت 35 عامًا، و19٪ فقط تفوق أعمارهم الخمسين. فيما يتعلق بالعمالة، يعمل ثلثهم كعمال باليومية وعمال في قطاع التصنيع، في حين يعمل ثلث آخر في وظائف مهنية. وتتلقى الجالية الدعم من منظمات مثل المنتدى الأسترالي العراقي والعديد من الجمعيات الدينية والثقافية.

Immigration History from Iraq (Kurdish) to Victoria

له دایكبووی دانیشتوانی عێراقی له ولایه تی ڤیكتۆریا بۆیه كه م جار له ئامارێ 1976 دا ناسرانه وه ،كه 189 كه س ناونووس كرابوون . له مه ودای پێنج ساڵدا كۆمه ڵه ی كوردی خه ریكبوو ژماره ێ سێ ئه وه نده زیاد بكات بۆ 480 كه س ، وه له ساڵی 1991 ژماره یان زیادبوو بۆ 603 ، ژماره یه كی زۆر دووچاری هه ڵهاتن بوون به هۆی جه نگێ هه شت ساڵه ێ ئێران و عێراق ، كه كۆتایی هات له 1988.

به ر پابوونی جه نگی كه نداوی 1991 بوو به هۆێ هه ڵاتنی ژماره یه كی زۆر له خه ڵكێ عێراقێ بۆ ووڵاتانی هاوسنوور . ژماره یه ك له په نابه ران بۆ ماوه ی پێنج ساڵ له ناو چادرگا مانه وه و ژیانیان برده سه ر پێش وه رگرتنیان له لایه ن ئوسترالیاوه به پێی به رنامه ێ مرۆڤ خواستی تایبه تی . له ماوه ی ئه و سه رده مه دا ڤیزه ی نزیكه ی 400 كه سی عێراقی كه له ئوسترالیا ژیانیان ده برده سه ر درێژه پێدرا تاوه كو كۆتایی جه نگی كه نداو.

له نێوان ساڵانی 1992- 1995 كۆچكردنی عێراقییه كان بۆ ئوسترالیا گه یشته به رزترین پله ، له گه ڵ له دایكبوونی منداڵانی دانیشتوانی عێراقی له ولایه تی ڤیكتۆریا به رز بۆوه بۆ 3492 تا ساڵی 1996 . ئه م كۆمه ڵه زیاد بوو و گه شه ی كرد بۆ 12795 كه س تا ساڵی 2011 . ژماره یه كی زۆر عێراقی داوای باری په نابه ریان كردووه دوای گه یشتنیان بۆ ناو ئوسترالیا ، كه به ندكراون و ڕه وتی كاره كانیان یه كلایی نه كراوه و به رده وامه.

ئه مڕۆ كۆمه ڵه ی له دایكبوی هاوڵاتی عێراقی كه لتورێكی هه مه چه شنه یه و نیشته جێن له گه ڵ چه ندین ڕه گه زو كه لتوری مێژوویی تر وه كو ، عه ره ب ، كورد ، توركمان ، كلدانی له گه ڵ ئاسورییه كان . له گه ڵ ئه وه شدا كه دینی ئیسلام دینێكی زاڵ و سه ره كییه له عێراقدا ، ته نها له 28% ی كۆچكه رانی له دایكبوی عێراقی كه له ڤیكتۆریا ئه ژین موسڵمانن ، وه له 60% ی كریستیانن.

نزیكه ی نیوه ێ كۆمه ڵه ی دانیشتوانی عێراقی له ماڵه وه به زمانی عه ره بی ده دوێن، وه له 3% ی به ئنگلیزی ده دوێن كه ژماره ی كۆچكه رانی تازه ی ناو دانیشتوانی كۆمه ڵه كه نیشان ده دا . نیوه ی زیاتری خه ڵكی له دایك بوی دانیشتووانی عێراقی له ولایه تی ڤیكتۆریا ته مه نیان له خواروی 35 ساڵه ، وه ته نها له 15% ته مه نیان له سه روی 50 ساڵه . له بواری كاركردنیشدا هه ردوو ژن و پیاو به شێوه یه كی گشتی له بواری كاردان و كارگه رن له بواری پیشه سازی و به رهه م هێنان ، له هه مان كاتدا نزیكه ێ له 25% ی له بواری فه رمانبه ریدا كارده كه ن ، ئه م كۆمه ڵه پاڵپشتی ده كرێ له لایه ن ڕێکخراوی یه كگرتوویی عێراقی ئوسترالی له گه ڵ چه ندین ڕێكخراوی دینی یان كه لتووری تر

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Iraqi-born Victorians were first identified in the Victorian census in 1976, when 189 people were recorded. Within five years the community had almost tripled to 408, and by 1991 had increased to 603. Many escaped hardships caused by the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which ended in 1988.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration History from Iran to Victoria

Few Iranians settled in Victoria in the nineteenth century, with only seven recorded in the 1891 census. The community began to grow significantly in the decades after World War II, with service workers from the oil industry among the first to settle. By 1976, 390 Iran-born people lived in Victoria.

The fall of the monarchy in Iran in 1979 precipitated a large increase in the number of Iranians settling in Victoria. The monarchy was overtaken by an Islamic government, determined to stop the increasing westernisation of Iran and the weakening of Islam. The situation in Iran deteriorated with the outbreak of an eight-year war between Iraq and Iran in 1980.

In 1981 Australia developed a special Humanitarian assistance program for Baha'i fleeing persecution in Iran. By 1988, some 2,500 Iran-born immigrants had arrived in Australia under this and other immigration categories including the Skilled Stream of Australia's Migration Program. The Iran-born population in Victoria almost quadrupled during the 1980s, from just 583 in 1981 to 2,230 a decade later. Many were professionals and Western-educated.

The population increased more slowly during the 1990s. The 2016 census recorded 16,628 Iran-born Victorians. These recent arrivals largely immigrated under the Skill and Family Reunion Streams.

Today the majority of Victoria's Iran-born community live in the municipalities of Manningham and Whitehorse and many are employed as professionals. Iran-born Victorians have a higher proportion of bachelor and postgraduate degrees than the population of Victoria as a whole. They are predominately Muslim (43%) and Baha'i (18%). Iranian culture is supported through the activities of organisations including the Iranian Society of Victoria and the Iranian Cultural School in East Doncaster.

Immigration History from Iran (Farsi) to Victoria

تعداد معدوی ایرانی در قرن نوزدهم میلادی ، تنها با ثبت هفت نفر در سرشماری 1891 ساکن ویکتوریا بودند. پس از چنگ جهانی دوم با فعالیت مفید کارگران در صنعت نفت از بین اولین مهاجران اجتماع آنان به طور قابل ملاحظه ای شروع به رشد کرد. تا سال 1976، تعداد ایرانیانی که در ویکتوریا زندگی میکردند به 390 نفر رسید.

با سقوط سلطنت شاهنشاهی ایران در سال 1979و تعداد گریختگان منجر به افزایش جمعیت ایرانیان در ویکتوریا شد. دولت اسلامی که باعث سرنگونی سلطنت شاهنشاهی بود ، عزم برتوقف رشد غرب زدگی و عدم تضعیف اسلام در ایران را داشت . اما وضعیت ایران با شروع یک جنگ هشت ساله بین ایران و عراق در سال 1980 روبه وخامت گروید.

در سال 1981 استرالیا اقدام به طرح برنامه کمک بشردوستانه به بهائیانی که در ایران مورد ظلم و جور قرار میگرفتند نمود. تا سال 1988، تعداد ایرانیان مهاجر که یا از طریق کمک بشردوستانه و یا دیگر موارد مهاجرتی شامل مهارتهای شغلی برنامه مهاجرتی استرالیا به این کشور آمده بودند به 2500 تن رسید. به این طریق جمعیت ایرانیان ویکتوریا در طول سال 1980 به حدود چهاربرابر رسید ، یعنی بعد از گذشت یک دهه از 1980جمعیت از 583 نفر به 2,230 نفر رشد یافت. بیشتر آنها نیز متخصص و تحصیل کردهء غرب بودند.

افزایش جعیت در طول 1990 روند کندی پیدا کرد. سرشماری 2011 ایرانیان ویکتوریا را تعداد 7,446 نفر ثبت کرده است. بیشتر جمعیت این تازه واردان تحت عنوان مهارتهای شغلی و خانوادگی مهاجرت کرده اند.

امروزه بیشتر جمعیت ایرانیان ویکتوریا در محله های Manningham و Whitehorse زندگی می کنند که بیشتر بعنوان متخصص اشتغال بکار دارند. نسبت تحصیل کرده های ایرانی مقیم ویکتوریا در مقاطع کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد بالاتر از کل تحصیل کرده های جمعیت ویکتوریا است . اکثریت قریب به اتفاق مسلمان (43%) و بهایی (18%) هستند. فرهنگ ایرانی از سوی فعالیت سازمان هایی شامل انجمن ایرانیان ویکتوریا و مدرسه تربیتی ایرانیان واقع در East Doncaster نیز حمایت می شود.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few Iranians settled in Victoria in the nineteenth century, with only seven recorded in the 1891 census. The community began to grow significantly in the decades after World War II, with service workers from the oil industry among the first to settle. By 1976, 390 Iran-born people lived in Victoria.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration History from Serbia to Victoria

Few immigrants from the area known as Serbia settled in Victoria in the 19th century. In the 1901 census, just three men from Serbia were recorded.

After World War I, the Kingdom of Serbia united with other Balkan territories to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was formally named in 1929. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis powers and temporarily dismantled during World War II, and large numbers of people fled. Yugoslavs were amongst the large numbers who came to Victoria between 1948 and 1955 from Displaced Persons camps in Europe. Many who came to Australia at this time were opposed to the newly-formed communist regime in Yugoslavia. By 1954 there were 6,118 immigrants from Yugoslavia living in Victoria.

The worsening economic situation in Yugoslavia, including high unemployment in the 1960s and 1970s, caused more Yugoslavia-born people to immigrate to Victoria. Many people had been working temporarily in Western Europe, especially Germany, before immigrating to Australia. Between 1961 and 1971, the Yugoslavia-born population in Victoria increase nearly three-fold to 49,755 people.

After the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1992, Serbia and Montenegro were proclaimed as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In 1996, when people born in Serbia and Montenegro were first counted separately in the Australian census, there were 4,133 living in Victoria. By 2001 the census recorded 19,643 people born in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - an increase that may reflect a different definition of the country rather than a large influx of immigrants. In 2003 the country was formally renamed Serbia and Montenegro as a state union. The 2006 census recorded 7,052 Victorians born in Serbia and Montenegro. In the same year Serbia and Montenegro formally split into separate states, but the census still counted them as a union. In 2008, the Kosovo assembly declared Kosovo independent of Serbia. The 2016 census counted 7,310 Victorians born in Serbia, whilst 518 were counted for Montenegro and 538 for Kosovo.

Most members of the Victorian community live in the western and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Of those in employment 34% work in professional roles and 20% are labourers and tradespersons. While 46% of the population were Serbian Orthodox, 15% were Eastern Orthodox. Today Serbian is by far the most common language spoken at home within the community, which is supported by a range of ethno-specific organisations.

Immigration History from Serbia (Serbian) to Victoria

Неколико досељеника са подручја некада познатог као Србиj настанило cе у Викторији у 19. веку. Према попису становништва из 1901. само три мушкарци из Србије су били регистровани.

После Првог светског рата Краљевине Србија ујединиле се са остатком балканских земаља и територија формирале Краљевину Срба, Хрвата и Словенаца. А 1929. године земља је формално названа Краљевина Југославија. Југославија је била окупирана од стране сила осовине и привремено разоружана за време Другог светског рата, и велики број људи је напустио земљу. Југословени су били међу најбројнијима који су се доселили у Викторију између 1948. и 1955. године, из кампова за расељена лица у Европи. Многи од њих који су се тада доселили у Аустралију били су против новооснованог комунистичког режима у Југославији. До 1954. било је 6,118 досељеника из Југославије у Викотирији.

Погоршана економска ситуација у Југославији, укључујући незапосленост током 1960-их и 1970-их определило је велики број људи, рођених у Југославији да емигрирају у Викторију. Многи од њих су радили привремено у Западној Европи, посебно у Немачкој, пре него сто што су емигрирали у Аустралију. Између 1961. и 1971. популација људи рођених у Југославији повећала се на 49,755 људи.

После распада Југославије 1992. Србија и Црна Гора прогласиле су се Федералном Републиком Југославијом. 1996. када су се особе рођене у Србији и Црној Гори по први пут пописивале посебно, приликом пописа становништва у Аустралији, било их је 4,133 који су живели у Викторији. Пописом становништва 2001. регистроване су 19,643 особе које су рођене у Федералној Републици Југославији - пораст који је одражавао више различиту дефиницију назива државе него велики прилив миграната. 2003. формално је промењен назив земље у Србија и Црна Гора, као унија држава. После тога, цензусом из 2006 пописано је 7,052 Викторијанца који су рођени у Србији и Црној Гори. Исте године Србија и Црна Гора су се формално поделиле у посебне државе, али је цензус тада још увек признавао унију држава. 2011 попису бројао 7383 Викторија је рођен у Србији, 518 је рођен у Црној Гори и 538 рођен на Косову

Велики број чланова викторијске заједнице живи у западним и југо-источним предграђима Мелбурна. Од оних који су запослени 34% су професионалци, а 20% раде као радници и занатлије. Док су 46% популације били припадници српске православне вероисповести, 15% су били источни православци. Данас се српски језик најчешће говори у домаћинствима у овој заједници, што подржава велики број специфичних етничких организација.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few immigrants from the area known as Serbia settled in Victoria in the 19th century. In the 1901 census, just three men from Serbia were recorded. After World War I, the Kingdom of Serbia united with other Balkan territories to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration History from Croatia to Victoria

The first group of Croatian immigrants came to Victoria after the discovery of gold in 1851. After working on the goldfields with varying degrees of success, some became seamen, labourers, vignerons and caterers. Around one third eventually settled in Melbourne, and by 1890 there were over 450 Croatians living in Victoria.

During the 1920s, Croatians settled in Mildura and worked in the fruit growing industry. Mildura was soon known as 'little Medjimurjie', named after an agricultural region of Croatia where many of the workers had been born. Croatians were also amongst the large numbers of Displaced Persons who arrived following World War II. Older settlers provided these newcomers with a great deal of social and organisational support.

A substantial number of Croatian immigrants came to Victoria in the 1960s and 1970s due to high unemployment, deteriorating economic conditions and anti-Croatian sentiment in Yugoslavia. Immigrants who settled here throughout the following decade primarily arrived under family reunion programs.

A number of Croatian refugees came to Victoria during the 1990s, escaping ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia. Victoria's Croatian community subsequently took part in celebrations when Croatian independence was recognised in 1992, and when Croatia became a member of the United Nations during that same year.

In 2016, the census recorded 15,489 Croatia-born people in Victoria. Living predominantly in Melbourne and Geelong, most members of this community are Catholic; a large proportion speaks Croatian at home. Many are employed as tradespeople and related workers within the manufacturing and construction industries. Supporting the cultural traditions of the Croatian community in Victoria today, are a range of organisations including the Australian Croatian Association in Footscray.

Immigration History from Croatia (Croatian) to Victoria

Prva skupina hrvatskih doseljenika stigla je u Viktoriju kada je otkriveno zlato 1851. godine. Nakon što su se okušali radeći na nalazištima zlata, s manje ili više uspjeha, neki od njih su postali pomorci, fizički radnici, vinogradari i ugostitelji. Više od jedne trećine ih se nastanilo u Melbourneu, a do 1890. u Viktoriji je živjelo više od 450 Hrvata.

Tijekom 1920tih Hrvati su se naselili u Milduri, gdje su radili u voćarskoj industriji. Mildura je uskoro postala poznata kao "malo Međimurje", prema poljoprivrednoj regiji Hrvatske iz koje su mnogi od radnika bili rodom. Hrvata je bilo i među velikim brojem raseljenih osoba pristiglih nakon II. svjetskog rata. Stariji doseljenici pružili su novodošlima veliku društvenu i organizacijsku potporu.

Znatan broj hrvatskih doseljenika stigao je u Viktoriju 1960tih i1970tih godina uslijed visoke nezaposlenosti, sve težih ekonomski uvjeta, te protuhrvatskog raspoloženja u Jugoslaviji. Doseljenici koji su se ovdje naselili tijekom slijedećeg desetljeća uglavnom su stizali putem programa obiteljskog ujedinjenja.

Jedan broj hrvatskih izbjeglica stigao je u Viktoriju za vrijeme 1990tih bježeći pred etničkim sukobima u Jugoslaviji. Nedugo zatim, Hrvatska zajednica Viktorije pridružila se proslavama povodom priznavanja nezavisnosti Hrvatske 1992., te njenog učlanjenja u Ujedinjene narode iste godine.

U popisu stanovništva 2011. godine u Viktoriji je registrirano 17.247 osoba rođenih u Hrvatskoj. Većina članova ove zajednice su katolici, pretežno žive u Melbourneu i Geelongu, i veliki ih dio kod kuće govori hrvatski. Mnogi su zaposleni kao obrtnici, te u srodnim zanimanjima u proizvodnji i građevinarstvu. Danas, u održavanju kulturnog nasljeđa hrvatske zajednice u Viktoriji, sudjeluje čitav niz organizacija, što uključuje i Australsko-hrvatsku udrugu u Footscrayu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first group of Croatian immigrants came to Victoria after the discovery of gold in 1851. After working on the goldfields with varying degrees of success, some became seamen, labourers, vignerons and caterers. Around one third eventually settled in Melbourne, and by 1890 there were over 450 Croatians living in Victoria.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration History from India to Victoria

In the early 19th century a small number of Indians arrived in Australia as convicts transported by the British colonial government in India. Others arrived as labourers with British subjects who had been living in India. They included 14 servants brought out to Victoria in 1843 by wealthy landowner Major Alexander Davidson. Attempts to recruit Indian labourers on a large scale were not supported by the general population.

In the late 19th century more Indians came seeking work, mostly as hawkers and agricultural labourers. They were made welcome because India was a British colony. By 1901 the India-born population of Victoria was almost 1,800. The White Australia Policy was introduced that year, restricting further Indian immigration, except for Anglo-Celtic colonials.

After India became independent from Britain in 1947, an increasing number of British citizens born in India immigrated to Australia along with Anglo-Indians. By 1954 over 3,000 Victorians were of Indian birth. Most were Christian and probably Anglo-Celtic. Following the relaxation of Australia's restrictive immigration policies from 1966, a broader range of Indians began arriving. They included professionals such as doctors, teachers and engineers who initially accepted work in regional Victoria.

The India-born community in Victoria increased significantly after the end of the White Australia Policy in 1973. By the late 1970s around 12,000 were India-born. In the early 1980s employment opportunities in Victoria saw increasing numbers of immigrants with technical and computer skills arriving. 169,804 India-born Victorians were recorded in 2016.

Today, the India-born community is culturally diverse. 36% is Christian; 63% is Hindu; while around 29% are Sikhs. A few are Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish. 36% speak English at home, whilst 20% speak Hindi and smaller numbers speak Tamil, Urdu and Bengali. 42% work in professional roles; many others work in clerical, sales, production and transport-related roles. The vibrant cultures of India are maintained through a range of organisations and events, including the Australia India Society of Victoria and the Academy of Indian Music.

Immigration History from India (Hindi) to Victoria

19वीं शताब्दी के प्रारंभ में ऑस्ट्रेलिया आये भारतीयों में से कुछ को, तत्कालीन ब्रिटिश सरकार ने कैदियों के रूप में यहाँ भेजा था. अन्य लोग, भारत में रह रहे ब्रिटिश अधिकारियों के साथ श्रमिकों के रूप में यहाँ आये। इनमें वो 14 सेवक भी शामिल थे जिन्हें एक धनवान जमींदार मेजर Alexander Davidson सन् 1843 में विक्टोरिया लाये, परंतु साधारण जनता बहुत सारे भारतीय श्रमिकों की भर्ती से सहमत नहीं थी।

19वीं शताब्दी के अन्त तक काम की तलाश में कुछ और भारतीय यहाँ आये, जिनमें अधिकतर सँख्या कृषि मजदूरों एवम् फेरी वालों की थी और क्योंकि भारत उस समय ब्रिटेन के आधीन था, इसलिये यहाँ के लोगों ने उन्हें स्वीकार कर लिया। सन् 1901 में विक्टोरिया में भारत में जन्में लोगों की सँख्या 1,800 थी। इसी वर्ष श्वेत अॉस्ट्रेलिया नीति अपनाई गई, जिससे Anglo-Celtic लोगों के अलावा अन्य भारतीयों के यहाँ आने पर पाबन्दी लग गई।

सन् 1947 में जब भारत को अंग्रेजी राज से स्वतंत्रता मिली तो भारी सँख्या में भारत में जन्मे ब्रिटिश नागरिकों के साथ Anglo-Indians भी ऑस्ट्रेलिया में आकर बस गए। सन् 1954 तक भारत में जन्में विक्टोरिया वासियों की संख्या 3,000 से भी ऊपर पहुँच गई, इनमें से अधिकांश लोग ईसाई एवम् Anglo-Celtic थे। सन् 1966 से अॉस्ट्रेलिया के कड़े अप्रवास ( Immigration) नियमों में कुछ ढील दिये जाने के बाद, विभिन्न क्षेत्रों में काम करने वाले भारतीय जैसे डॉक्टर्स, अध्यापक व इंजीनियर्स आदि यहाँ आने लगे। सन् 2011 में भारत में जन्मे विक्टोरियावासियों की सँख्या 111,787 दर्ज की गयी।

सन् 1973 में श्वेत ऑस्ट्रेलिया पॉलिसी के समाप्त होने के बाद विक्टोरिया में भारत में जन्मे लोगों की सँख्या में उल्लेखनीय रूप से वृद्धि हुई और 1970 के दशक के अन्त तक यहाँ के निवासियों में उनकी सँख्या लगभग 12,000 हो गई। 1980 के दशक के प्रारंभिक काल में विक्टोरिया में, रोजगार के अवसर बढने के साथ ही, कम्प्यूटर व तकनीक के क्षेत्र में कुशल भारतीयों की सँख्या भी बढने लगी और इस सहस्त्राब्दी के प्रारंभ में भारत में जन्में विक्टोरियावासियों की सँख्या 30,000 से भी अधिक हो गई।

आज यहाँ के भारतीय समाज में विभिन्न सँस्कृतियों वाले लोग शामिल हैं, जिनमें से 36% ईसाई, 63% हिन्दु व लगभग 29% सिख हैं और कुछ सँख्या मुसलमानों, बौद्धों व पारसियों की भी है। यहाँ के भारतीय समाज में से 36% लोग घरों में अंग्रजी भाषा बोलते हैँ, और 20% हिन्दी। थोड़े बहुत लोग तमिल, उर्दू व बंगाली बोलते हैं। विक्टोरिया के भारतीय समाज के 42% प्रतिशत लोग प्रोफेशनल पदों पर काम करते हैं व बहुत से अन्य लोग उत्पादन व यातायात के साथ.. व सेल्स. संबंढ़ित कामों में लगे हैं। भारत की समृद्ध सँस्कृति को विभिन्न सँस्थाओं व समारोहों के द्वारा बनाया रखा जा रहा है। इन सँस्थाओं मे the Australia India Society of Victoria व The Academy of Indian Music भी शामिल है।

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the early 19th century a small number of Indians arrived in Australia as convicts transported by the British colonial government in India. Others arrived as labourers with British subjects who had been living in India. They included 14 servants brought out to Victoria in 1843 by wealthy landowner Major Alexander Davidson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is something that Kot Monoah would like Australians to understand about his community.

It's not just that most South Sudanese people have been through war and suffering that many Australians would have trouble imagining; or that they come from a very different culture.

It's this: just like Australians, they are a diverse bunch.

The chair of the Victorian South Sudanese Community Association tells SBS News: "Just like you'd find there are Australians that are rednecks, some that are accommodating, some that have a narrow view of the world, some that are uneducated, some that are extremely educated - all of that. South Sudanese are the same. What they want is a fair go."

South Sudanese in Australia

Australia's South Sudanese community mostly settled here as refugees who had been displaced by conflict at home, with the largest numbers arriving between 2003 and 2006.

Although South Sudan was not declared an independent nation until 2011, there has for generations been a sense of independent South Sudanese identity distinct from the North (now known as Sudan).

In the last census the South Sudanese were counted for the first time, with 7,700 Australians saying they were born there. But community leaders say the population is more likely over 20,000 nationally.

The biggest South Sudanese community is in Melbourne, closely followed by Sydney, but there are also significant communities in regional areas including Wagga Wagga and Armidale.

The struggle to resettle

Many South Sudanese have experienced significant difficulties in adjusting to their new lives in Australia, compounded by the negative press storm in 2015 and 2016 associating young South Sudanese men with crime and violence and the so-called Apex gang in Melbourne.

The crime group - named after a street in Dandenong - was declared a "non-entity" by Victoria Police in April 2017, with Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton telling a parliamentary inquiry "a large cohort of that gang was in fact Australian-born offenders".

Mr Monoah, who moved to Australia from South Sudan in 2004 and is now a lawyer in Melbourne, said "media profiling has been the main challenge and factor in alienating the community."

He said the Australian media had not been kind to many groups of new migrants over time, but racial profiling of South Sudanese had caused real harm to innocent people.

"During the Apex gang [media coverage], the community struggled to find rental housing," he said, claiming families were rejected on the basis of being South Sudanese.

"People already working would get asked funny questions, 'are you a member of the Apex gang?', and children as young as five or six were being asked this in school - not to mention those already struggling to find employment."

Emmanuel Kondok, chair of the NSW Community of South Sudanese and Other Marginalised Areas group (CSSOMA) said that for many the challenges facing them in Australia were the basics: finding affordable housing for the typically large South Sudanese family; gaining employment; and access to suitable education - particularly for adults who may have never attended school.

CSSOMA coordinates community services including advocacy, training, mentoring, health, unemployment coaching, social justice lobbying, child protection, cultural dance and Independence Day celebrations, as well as parenting courses.

'Cultural dissonance'

Sydney youth worker Dor Akech Achiek, a South Sudanese refugee who resettled in Australia as a teenager in 2003, said casual and systemic racism affects every aspect of their lives from schooling to interacting with the police, to employment opportunities.

But he said the "cultural dissonance" between their old and new countries had been particularly difficult.

"The South Sudanese do have an overly traditional culture," he said. "Depending on their tribe, they would have a very strong South Sudanese culture at home. That presents a difficulty with how you interact with everyday life in Australia.

"For a young man it's completely different, being required to be a Sudanese at home and when they go outside they are required to be Australian. It's a very difficult line to tread."

He said traditional patriarchal expectations from South Sudan also impact heavily on young girls who are expected to do the housework rather than homework after school.

"And how much impact can that have on a young girl that would like to pursue her education, want to have time to study or do their assignments - those things are hard to mitigate."

Mr Achiek, who works for a refugee resettlement service and in his own time coordinates the South Sudanese Youth Advocacy Group, said schools still struggle to address the difficulties faced by South Sudanese Australians.

"Sometimes there is too much focus on sport," he said. "At the moment the school system does not know how to address their issues or how to provide an effective educational outcome for young people from South Sudanese background. Too often their participation at school level is restricted to - or it is more promoted and encouraged to attend sport. So educational goals are given much less focus in that space."

Independence and civil war

South Sudan is the world's newest nation, formed in 2011 when it gained its independence from Sudan. But the country of an estimated 12 million collapsed into a ferocious civil war in 2013, and remains riven with tribal conflicts and famine.

The conflict began between the two largest ethnic groups, the Nuer and the Dinka, but has since engulfed other groups after a 2015 peace agreement collapsed. There are 64 ethnic groups in the country with distinct languages and kinship ties.

The UN said in August 2017 that there were more than one million South Sudanese who had fled the horrific violence in their homeland for refuge in neighbouring Uganda.

At least a million more have fled to Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic, the UN says, with an estimated two million more internally displaced in the country.

"The number of hungry and displaced South Sudanese is overwhelming," said International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) president Peter Maurer in August.

"The staggering scale of suffering is evidence of the cumulative effect of three-and-a-half years of a style of fighting that appears calibrated to maximise misery. Warfare should not directly impact the lives of so many civilians."

'We are all united here'

Mr Kondok said local community leaders have worked hard to leave divisive tribal politics behind in South Sudan.

"The Southern Sudanese are working closely, the ethnic or tribal groups, to not have that difference. I am the leader of the South Sudanese in NSW and I'm not aware of such [problems here]. In a few cases there are issues. But the slogan we use is that we are all South Sudanese, regardless of the differences back home, we are all united here."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is something that Kot Monoah would like Australians to understand about his community. It's not just that most South Sudanese people have been through war and suffering that many Australians would have trouble imagining; or that they come from a very different culture. It's this: just like Australians, they are a diverse bunch.