Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 13, 2477 –2494, 2001 Multicultural Policy within Local Government in Australia Kevin Dunn, Susan Thompson, Bronwyn Hanna, Peter Murphy and Ian Burnley [Paper rst received, September 2000; in nal form, March 2001] Summary. This paper examines resultsfrom an Australia-wide survey of multicultural policies at the level of local government. Multicultural policies have the potential to advance alocal ‘politics of difference’, recasting governance, such that citizenship is expanded. Multicultural policies aredescribed in termsof accessand equity programmes, community relations policies and symbolic representations of cultural diversity and inclusive citizenship. The questionnaire survey of managers within local government revealed abroad array of good practices.However, thereremained signi cant servicegaps for residentsof non-English-speaking backgrounds as wellas ageneral reluctanceto tackle instances of serious intercommunal tension. Therewas also somehesitancy to embracethe notion of adiverselocal citizenry. Introduction While there has been extensive researchon empiricalgap by offering the rst compre- multicultural policy and practiceat the levels hensive assessment of multicultural policy in of federaland state governments in Australia local government in Australia. In presenting (seeCastles et al.,1988), acriticalevaluation the results froma national survey of local of the incorporation of multicultural policies government agencies (or‘ councils’), this pa- atthe level of local government is long over- per complements and extends the work of a due. In Canada, the UKand Sweden, there handful of scholarly commentarieson Aus- have been recent analyses of the extent to tralian local government and multicultural- which local and metropolitan governments ism(Sandercock, 1998; Sandercock and caterto their diverse constituencies (Khakee Kliger, 1997; Watson and McGillivray, and Thomas, 1995; Qadeer, 1994). In Aus- 1994). tralia,however, the breadth and nature of Our work also addresses the growing multicultural policy developed by this sphere literatureon appropriate policy and theoreti- of government have been little examined. calresponses to differenceand diversity in The researchpresented here addresses that the post-modern city (Fincher and Jacobs, Kevin Dunn is in the School of Geography, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Fax: 1 61 (2)9313 7878. E-mail: [email protected]. Susan Thompson is in the Planning and Urban Development Program, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Fax: 1 61 (2)9385 4507. E-mail: [email protected]. Bronwyn Hanna is in the Faculty of the Built Environment and School of Geography, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Fax: 1 61 (2)9313 7878. E-mail: [email protected]. Peter Murphy is in the Planning and Urban Development Program, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Fax: 1 61 (2)9385 4507. E-mail: [email protected]. Ian Burnley is in the School of Geography, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Fax: 1 61 (2)9385 5964. E-mail: [email protected]. 0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/01/132477-18 Ó 2001 The Editors of Urban Studies DOI:10.1080/ 00420980120094623 2478 KEVIN DUNN ET AL. 1998; Hage, 1998; Isin and Wood, 1999; We then explore constraints on the incorpo- Qadeer, 1997). Cultural theorists have been ration of multicultural policies in local advocating a‘politics of difference’as a government and conclude with acommen- mode of governance forprogressing towards tary on the potential fora local politics of an ‘unoppressive city’(see Young, 1990). differencein Australia. However, moredetailed prescriptions on the mechanisms such progress entails have rarely been forthcoming. We argue here that the Australian Multiculturalism—A Politics of development of multiculturalism in Australia Difference? can be seen as ameans of advancing the Therehas been considerable opposition to potential of a‘politics of difference’. multicultural policy development in Aus- In this paper, weare interested in the tralia.The extremeright party of Pauline institutionalisation of multiculturalism in Hanson (TheOne Nation Party)are the Australia as apolicy frameworkfor address- mosty prominent contemporary opponents of ing cultural differencewithin local govern- Australian multiculturalism (Hanson, 1996, ment. Itis in this sense that weinclude 1 p. 3862). Such criticssteadfastly oppose the indigenous Australians within the study. The altering or sensitising of service delivery and paper rst offersa briefdescription of the argue that all people should be treated the extent of ethnic cultural diversity atthe level same(see MacGregor, 1997, pp. 46 –47). of local government areasacross Australia, However, the rst step in alocal politics of using statistics fromthe 1996 Census. This is differenceis the recognition that “the public followed by adescription of Australian insti- interest is composite ratherthan unitary” tutional and policy developments on multi- (Qadeer,1994, p. 187; Isin and Wood, 1999). culturalism since the early 1970s. The paper Itis clearthat residents areunequally em- then offersdetailed results froma national powered in their access to services. Barriers survey of local government. Our analysis to services, but also to information and par- recognises three broad categories of multi- ticipation, arerelated to language compe- cultural policy. tency and education. Other impediments —Access to services .The provision of ser- include cultural understandings of the local- vices in an equitable fashion. This iseither ity and the way bureaucracies operate. Multi- through ethno-specic service agencies or cultural local governance is about expanding by ensuring that mainstreamagencies are access to services and ameliorating intercom- responsive to their clients’culturally di- munal tensions. verse needs. Multicultural policy has facedconsider- —Community relations. Interest and inter- able examination fromcultural theorists. vention in intercommunal relations. This They have been particularly criticalof multi- includes detecting and responding to inter- cultural policies which exoticise minority communal problems, such as interethnic cultural groups (such as through festivals and discord, attitudinal intolerance, institu- artsprogrammes) and of those which aimfor tional racism,problematic mediareporting cultural assimilation (Castles et al., 1988, and community images. pp. 5–7, 13; Hage, 1998; Vertovec, 1996, —Citizenship and symbolic representation . p. 50). Difference(be it cultural, social or The facilitation of diverse cultural prac- linguistic) under these criticised formsof tices and expression, including the protec- policy is treated as abarrierto integration tion of heritage and sites of cultural and to accessing services. Critics have in- signicance. This category also encom- sisted upon moreradical or criticalmulticul- passes the ability of citizens to participate turalisms, alternatively referredto as a in the processes of local governance, as politics of differenceor acosmopolis wellas changes to the ofcial enunciations (Young, 1990; Sandercock, 1998). In the lo- of local identity and citizenship. calcommunity relations sphere, aradical MULTICULTURAL POLICY INAUSTRALIA 2479 formof multicultural policy would involve a tural policy by local government is viewed serious engagement with dominant group here. racisms.In the access and equity sphere it would involve programmes that generate Demographic Overview widespread and meaningful community in- volvement in council decision-making, such Australia has always been aculturally di- as through materialencouragement of more verse country (Jupp, 2001). British penal col- culturally diverse political representation. onies wereestablished inSydney and Hobart Other policy manifestations of this morerad- in 1788, adate variously celebrated as the icalform of multiculturalism would include ‘founding of the nation’and mourned as the the recognition of amultifarious local citi- beginning of the ‘white invasion’. At that zenry—for example, through moreinclusive time,it is estimated that up to 1million ofcial portrayals of collective identity. Mul- indigenous people occupied the continent in ticultural local governance can develop to a agreat variety of cultural and linguistic politics of differenceby recasting the local groupings (Fesl, 1991). Australia’s sub- state, leading it to re-imagineits citizenry— sequent development can be characterised by forexample, as diverse and multifaceted, the entry of wave afterwave of immigrant individually and collectively—and to ques- groups. Since 1788, morethan 9million tion whether the simple ‘management’of immigrants have settled (Burnley et al., cultural differenceis appropriate (Isin and 1997, p. 1). These included agreat inux of Wood, 1999). Chinese prospectors during the 1850s gold We recognise that local government in rush, some Germanrural settlers, Afghan Australia is the weakest sphere of gover- cameleers,Malay pearlersand South Sea nance: it relieson central-statefunding, it is Islander cane workers. However, most immi- acreatureof state, not federal,legislation; grants before World War IIconsisted of En- and many councils have limited resources to glish-speaking people, largely fromthe UK expend upon areasnot formerlyidenti ed as and Ireland. Instruments of the White Aus- their preserve. Furthermore,