Australians All

Let’s Reclaim a Language of Inclusion

Michael Clyne

The decline of language expressing cultural inclusivity, one of our nation’s greatest achievements by international standards, is leaving a great vacuum.

Recently, we have seen the Australian flag is being used as a symbol of exclusion rather than inclusion. We should also be aware that the language of inclusion – in which we used to talk about ourselves and one another – is fast being displaced by a language of exclusion and division. The government’s dropping of Multicultural Affairs from the list of ministerial portfolios is just one additional symbolic act.

A good reference point for inclusive language is our national anthem in which we celebrate our commonalities and our willingness to share: ‘For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share’. The words were adapted for a modern, tolerant nation from a pre-Federation song, in which the Australians singing were explicitly stated to be male (‘Australia’s sons’) and with origins in the British Isles, and the express desire to keep others out.

In his successful 1996 election campaign, John Howard promised to rid Australia of ‘political correctness’. His party’s slogan was ‘For all of us’. It was not clear if the stress should fall on ‘all’ or on ‘us’. The dilemma is that any attempt to create unity and commonality without recognizing the strength of our diversity can only undermine unity. The relaxed lack of self-censorship created an environment in which the language of exclusion, including the airing of racist, xenophobic and other discriminatory discourse, moved from the extreme fringe to the respectable mainstream.

Mr Howard fully understands the importance of crafting language in persuading the nation. The turning point in the language of exclusion was the debate on asylum seekers when the prime minister and politicians of both major parties provided a model for the skilful use of language which subtly misrepresented harmless people as immoral bullies and a threat to the nation. Statements linking asylum seekers with the need for border protection invoked a connection with terrorism soon after September 11. It was a neat reversal of the fact that asylum seekers were claiming to be refugees from regimes that harboured terrorists.

By declaring the asylum seekers not to be ‘genuine refugees’ – making fallacious moral judgments, before their cases had been heard – and designating them as ‘illegals’ (non-people), politicians created conditions under which their treatment could be contrary to international human rights conventions. The term ‘queue jumper’ gained support for government policy on asylum seekers from two different groups – those who believe in the queue as a carrier of the mythical Australian value of fairness and those who falsely believed asylum seekers were preventing their relatives from receiving visas under the family reunion scheme.

The consequences of this intentional use of discriminatory language keep recurring. Throwing people out, is an instance. Think of those Australians of non-Anglo-Celtic background ‘accidentally’ incarcerated in detention camps or sent ‘back’ to a ‘homeland’ they had never seen or hardly knew. Or treasurer Peter Costello’s speech just under a year ago, in which he broached the subject of stripping those who did not adopt Australian values of their citizenship and deporting them. The chorus of xenophobes on Cronulla beach shouting to the Others: ‘Get off our beaches! You don’t belong here’. Fear generated by the statements of a few extremist imams persistently lead to exclusionary discourse and antagonism towards not only all Muslims but also anyone different, notably Christian Sudanese, as we have seen in recent media coverage.

Those who deride multiculturalism often confuse it with monoculturalism, or ethnic separatism. Persistent attacks by the prime minister, the treasurer, and the former parliamentary secretary for Multicultural Affairs on the term and the concept ‘multiculturalism’ have created a new ‘political correctness’ in which many people are reluctant to use the word. The decline of language expressing cultural inclusivity, one of our nation’s greatest achievements by international standards, is leaving a great vacuum.

John Howard’s and Andrew Robb’s preferred alternatives to ‘multiculturalism’ are ‘integration’ and ‘shared values’ respectively. Both these expressions are entirely compatible with multiculturalism. But used in contrast to multiculturalism, they take on a meaning similar to assimilation, a policy which has proved unsuccessful and unhelpful to the Australian nation, like ethnic separatism. Assimilation is the concept behind the citizenship tests and the values debate.

While Kevin Rudd has not yet announced his policy on social inclusion, which may or may not encompass cultural inclusion, he has quietly beaten the government to it by replacing Multicultural Affairs with Integration in the Immigration portfolio of his shadow ministry. Multicultural Affairs re-emerges in a separate portfolio with Consumer Affairs and Urban Development. He has missed an opportunity to challenge the government’s language by combining ‘integration’ and ‘multiculturalism’ and proclaiming an alternative vision of Australia.

For the future of all Australians, let us reclaim the language of inclusion and dispense with that of exclusion and division.