Fiscal Anarchy: The Public Funding of Multiculturalism

FOREWORD

What are the objectives of multiculturalism?  Does it complement the immigration programme?  Which aspects of which cultures is it to support?  Is it demanded by ethnic or cultural groups?  Or was it initiated by politicians seeking "block votes"?  What guidelines are there for the distribution of funds?  Is there any way of measuring its costs and benefits?  Has the ostensibly benign policy undesirable implications?  In this monograph Richard Wood attempts to answer these and related questions -- no simple task given the "sacred cow" status that multiculturalism has enjoyed for over a decade.

One of the key features that bedevils discussion of multiculturalism is its conceptual vagueness.  The FitzGerald report said that the public neither understood, nor supported it.  Yet to publicly question multiculturalism is to invite the charge of bigotry or ignorance from its defenders and to express doubt about the worth of any part of it usually elicits hysterical charges of racism.  At the same time, support for multiculturalism is often contradictory.  Its proponents first represent our immigration policy as non-discriminatory, then label all non-English-speaking migrants as "disadvantaged".  The syncretism is so obvious that multiculturalists retreat into moral outrage rather than enter into debate on the matter.

One can only presume that governments which support multiculturalism expect to win more votes from ethnic groups than they will lose from among the population at large.  That expectation accords nicely with modern public choice theory in which concentrated interests prevail over dispersed interests.

Richard Wood's monograph also points to what he calls the "anti-nationalist ideology", which is fairly widespread and which has influence far beyond its direct adherents.  It has helped prepare the way for the view that any culture is better than the predominant one.  Reading the claims of anti-nationalist ideologues one wonders whether support for multiculturalism stems more from dislike of English-speaking cultures than from a desire to promote harmony with others.  Common in certain sections of the media, its promotion, along with attempts to limit public debate about multiculturalism, has serious implications for freedom and democracy.

The problems raised by multiculturalism are not simply ideological.  Because of its sacrosanct status and its undefined aims, the public funding of multiculturalism is uncontrolled.  Duplication by the various levels of government is common and chaos ensues.  The extent of the mess is largely unknown owing to the inappropriate accounting methods used, the vague concepts involved and the evasiveness of the funding bodies.  For example, Wood shows how, by moving between different meanings of terms such as "welfare" and "multicultural activities", the multicultural lobby could allege a cut in Budget spending, when in fact there was an increase in spending.  In addition, there are huge differences between per-capita spending on various groups, with well-organised and established groups gaining the lion's share of funds -- in short, it is a lobbyist's Paradise.  Thus the ostensibly unintended consequences of vote-buying are inequitable.  High cost and demonstrable unfairness must eventually force changes towards the abolition of current multicultural policies or perhaps a change in the composition of the immigration intake.

Government policies on immigration and multiculturalism are now being questioned.  The response has been a mixture of dubious moral argument with some improbable claims about threats to the Australian economy.  Though the argument has sometimes been bitter, it has not been a bad thing.  No subject can be placed outside the realm of discussion in a liberal democracy -- however temporarily convenient this may be for the government.  Like it or not, the issues of real concern for Australian citizens will eventually be debated.

The value of Mr Wood's paper lies not only in his constructive suggestions, but in the extensive evidence he has marshalled to show just how anarchic multicultural funding is.  His work is a basis for long overdue debate and significant reform -- not only of multicultural funding, but of the funding of many other expensive government activities as well.

Owen Powell

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have been greatly helped by the staff of the Department of Politics at La Trobe University and in particular by Dr Michael James, Senior Lecturer in Politics, whose comments, criticism and advice proved invaluable.  I owe much to the support of my student colleagues Josella Rye and Ashley Major and to the assistance of Dianne Kellock and Kate Ransley.

All statements, opinions and analyses contained in this monograph are my own and are not necessarily endorsed by my past or current employers.

Richard J. Wood

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

• There is no clear or generally accepted definition of multiculturalism;
• Multiculturalism can only be understood by analysing the various components of this ideology;  and
• The multicultural lobby benefits from the definitional ambiguities associated with various welfare, post-arrival and multicultural programmes.

CHAPTER ONE

• Government accounting procedures are unable to provide accurate information on multicultural expenditure;
• At the present time, both governments and the community are ignorant of the range and extent of multicultural programmes and expenditure;  and
• Current fiscal anarchy in this area has led to widespread duplication of services and programmes both between departments and between levels of government.

CHAPTER TWO

• Multicultural expenditure was not cut back in the 1986-87 Federal Budget.  Indeed, expenditure appears to have been increased in real terms;
• Under the policy of multiculturalism, increases in immigration will facilitate a massive increase in expenditure in this area, despite the need for fiscal restraint;  and
• Multicultural expenditure is also directly linked to the composition of Australia's immigration intake.

CHAPTER THREE

• The subjective concept of "need" is used to justify multicultural expenditure.  However, analysis of Victorian Government grants to ethnic groups indicates that well established and highly organised ethnic groups are very successful at obtaining government funding, regardless of need;  and
• Newly arrived and unorganised ethnic groups are not successful in attracting funds, regardless of need.

CHAPTER FOUR

• The implementation of multiculturalism has seen the adoption and use of many of the methods and ideas from within the ideologies of the corporate state and extreme forms of socialism;
• Multiculturalism in practice is opposed to liberalism;  and
• Multiculturalism in practice has involved a concerted attack on freedom of speech and democracy in Australia.

CONCLUSION

• Aspects and implications of current fiscal anarchy are discussed;
• The trend to increase mainstreaming of government services will not necessarily involve reductions in expenditure.  Indeed, it is possible that aggregate expenditure could be increased by mainstreaming;
• The lack of accurate information on the public financing of multiculturalism has allowed for misconceptions to occur about the nature and extent of such funding;
• Specific recommendations include:

  Multiculturalism in its present form should be abolished and ethno-specific services should be privatised, by contracting-out such welfare functions.  Migrants should be given vouchers to utilise such services.

  The Federal Government must implement strategies to ascertain the nature and extent of expenditure in this area;  and

  Non-welfare multicultural grants should be allocated by one body and only to ethnic groups which operate democratically.

---

INTRODUCTION

Between 1978 and 1988 the policy of multiculturalism was adopted by all major political parties in Australia.  In government, parties have sought to implement the policy of multiculturalism through the introduction of new programmes and the modification of existing government services.  This paper examines government funding arrangements in this area from 1978 to 1988, and assesses the various empirical and philosophical aspects and implications of this expenditure.  It must, however, be stressed that many of the conclusions reached are provisional due to the numerous definitional ambiguities and lack of accurate data available to researchers in this area.

Refugees entering Australia have special needs.  Because these must be addressed by governments regardless of whether prevailing policy is multicultural, assimilationist or integrationist, the issue of the cost of providing services to refugees is specifically excluded from consideration here.  Expenditure on services for Aborigines is likewise excluded.

WHAT IS MULTICULTURALISM?

The term "multiculturalism" is in common use, not least in official publications, but there is no generally accepted definition.  For example, the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, predecessor of the current National Population Council as peak advisory body to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, claimed that the concept of multiculturalism involves the development of a cohesive society which encourages cultural identity and equality of access for all citizens. ⁽¹⁾

The now disbanded Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs argued, in its 1979-80 Annual Report, that as an ideology:

Multiculturalism recognises the ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity of Australian society and actively pursues equality of opportunity for all Australians to participate in the life of the nation and the right to maintain ethnic and cultural heritages within the law and the political framework. ⁽²⁾

According to the Office of Multicultural Affairs, which advises the Prime Minister on multicultural issues:

Multiculturalism aims to ensure that everyone, irrespective of background, has an equitable opportunity to:

• Participate in Australia's cultural and political life.
• Shape the decisions that affect them.
• Obtain a fair share of government services.
• Enjoy, within the law, their own culture, practice their own religion, and use their own language (as well as English) while respecting the right of others to do so. ⁽³⁾

The Report of the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies -- better known as the FitzGerald Report -- says that:

Multiculturalism, which is associated in the public mind with immigration, is seen by many as social engineering which actually invites injustice, inequality and divisiveness. ⁽⁴⁾

Multiculturalism could also be seen as:

• a multi-million dollar vote-buying exercise by politicians;
• a costly attempt to justify aspects of the current immigration programme;  or
• a genuine attempt by politicians to redress perceived inequalities within the Australian community.

In short, definitions and descriptions of multiculturalism are various and conflicting.  Multiculturalism means different things to different people.  These definitional ambiguities only emphasise the need for a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the phenomenon.  Perhaps the best way to analyse multiculturalism is to highlight its various components.

Multiculturalism appears to share many important aspects of the ideology of liberalism.  Both claim that individual freedom, and expression of that freedom, are valuable to society.  Both support institutions and policies which protect and foster free expression, along with the notion of equality of liberty and toleration.  Importantly, modern liberalism and multiculturalism each stress the need for state intervention to protect the freedom of individuals, especially those in disadvantaged groups.  In the context of a liberal pluralist society, both support the rule of law.  Hence, definitions of multiculturalism usually include support for cultural freedom of expression, the notion that such expression is valuable to society and that the state must intervene to protect and encourage such expression, within the prevailing legal system.  One could therefore argue that multiculturalism is a liberal philosophy.

But multiculturalism has also adopted central tenets of the ideology of socialism.  Multiculturalism and socialism both tend to emphasise the need for equality between groups, as distinct to equality for individuals.  Both stress equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.  Both tend to argue that groups must be made equal, through extensive state intervention and manipulation.  Both are suspicious of societies and economies which are not extensively regulated by the state, since such societies are seen as inherently unequal and unfair.  Both require economic and social barriers to the equality of groups to be actively broken down by the state.

The similarities between multiculturalism and socialism were highlighted by Dr Andrew Theophanous in the Federal Parliament in March 1988:

A multicultural plan of action involves a programme for the whole of society, an attack on major inequalities due to cultural differences. ⁽⁵⁾

By claiming that non-English-speaking (NES) migrants are disadvantaged and therefore require state assistance to facilitate equality of outcome through various policies, programmes and laws, multiculturalism can also be described as a socialist ideology.

Importantly, multiculturalism also appears to have incorporated important and central beliefs of the ideology of the corporate state.  Some features of the corporate state, such as the use of intermediary bodies between the state and the individual, are used as a method of indirectly implementing government policy.  In a descriptive sense, Western democratic governments do dispense favours to various groups in society;  this is part of a pluralistic and democratic society.  In a corporate state, however, the dispensing of favours and the funding of groups, such as trade unions and cultural organisations, is a method whereby government policy is implemented.  In a corporate state, groups receiving funding effectively operate as an arm of the state.  Ethnic leaders and groups act to some extent as intermediaries between governments and ethnic Australians in implementing government welfare/cultural policies and programmes.  Multiculturalism could therefore be seen as an ideology of the corporate state.

Multiculturalism and conservatism also have many similarities.  Both stress the need to preserve manners, customs and traditions against the powerful, impersonal and alienating forces of economic and social change.  Both argue that change must not destroy the customs and traditions of society.  Hence, protecting the culture of ethnic groups and not allowing social and economic changes such as migration to affect ethnic customs, is both a conservative and multicultural concept.  In this regard multiculturalism could be seen as a conservative ideology.

In addition to the four preceding political philosophies, another school of thought has developed in Australia since the 1970s which has a bearing on the meaning and content of multiculturalism.  Although it has yet to be named, it is apparent in the writings of many journalists, trade union leaders and academics, and involves a sustained critique of almost all aspects of Australia, its history and its people.  This critique effectively denies that Australian culture exists.  It often uses case studies of the "ugly Australian" to denigrate all Australians.  This attack on the lifestyles and culture of Australians shows contempt for Australians whose roots lie in pre-1945 immigration.  At the same time, it denies the legitimacy of facets of Australian cultural life, in comparison with foreign cultures in Europe and Asia.  Australia, it seems, needs to import cultures from Europe and Asia.  Recently, this argument has been taken one step further:  Australia, by virtue of its geography, is claimed to be in fact an Asian nation and therefore needs to adopt elements of Asian culture.

This philosophy, which for the purposes of this paper will be called "anti-nationalist", sees multiculturalism as the means by which culture can be imported.  At the same time, the denial of the legitimacy of Australian culture is supported by multiculturalism, which rejects the notion of a primary or dominant culture, since all cultures and cultural practices are equal, having equal worth and value.  Highlighting this multiculturalist/anti-nationalist ideology, Max Harris wrote:

Australia divided into two cultures.  The European-led culture gave us great flowerings of the visual arts, and the intellectual life, and the opera houses which could actually command audiences, and most importantly, an alternative set of conventions for social intercourse.  The booze-barbecue-footy-greed creed (forgive the ugly neologism) went on its merry way and at least left the new civilised Australia well alone. ⁽⁶⁾

Analysis of the ideology of multiculturalism requires appreciation of its many and varied components.  It is a relatively new ideology, an amalgam of important parts of the main political philosophies of the twentieth century.  Because of the vague and diverse understandings of what multiculturalism is, the emphasis put on each of its central components can be readily changed by its supporters to suit the occasion.  Thus, multiculturalism can be seen -- or presented -- as either a liberal, a socialist, a corporate state, a conservative or an anti-nationalist philosophy, or a combination of them.  Multiculturalism can be all things to all men.  This makes it difficult to analyse and criticise, and it also makes it easy to defend conceptually.  This is why no comprehensive definition, analysis or critique has been developed;  but until then, multiculturalism will continue to escape comprehensive conceptual analysis or critique.  To date, only criticism of specific features of multiculturalism has been possible, and the ideology has remained unassailable and intact.

EXPLAINING THE RISE OF MULTICULTURALISM

This may help explain the ideological primacy of multiculturalism in Australia since the mid-1970s, when all major political parties incorporated it in their policies.  But ideological primacy does not in itself explain why governments have adopted and implemented multicultural policies.  Multiculturalist policies appear to have been adopted in the absence of powerful interest groups demanding them.  Ethnic groups were then essentially cultural organisations, with little or no involvement in the political process.  Some ethnic Australians were genuinely disadvantaged, both economically and socially, while others had become highly successful in Australian society.  Ethnic groups did not rely on massive taxpayer subsidisation or state intervention to preserve their respective cultures or to fund the activities of the group.  There was no massive state bureaucracy reliant on ethnic groups and clients.  All Australians were treated equally and were eligible for the same level of service and support.  Few government programmes were provided exclusively for the ethnic community.

We can nevertheless identify some factors which facilitated the universal adoption by political parties of multiculturalism as policy.  The Institute of Multicultural Affairs 1985-86 Annual Report claimed that:

Multiculturalism was introduced as a policy that recognised the changes made in the composition of the Australian people by the post-war immigration programme. ... Multiculturalism recognised that the earlier policy of assimilation had proven to be unrealistic and that people were unlikely to discard their cultural heritages. ... Social cohesiveness was seen as more likely to flow from respect for diversity of cultures. ⁽⁷⁾

Thus, the Institute argued that the policy was adopted because it reflected contemporary Australia, and was a better way to improve tolerance and understanding within the Australian community.  Previous policies, such as assimilation or integration, were seen to have failed, and so politicians decided to try multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism could have been implemented in Australia to attract more migrants.  With the decline in the standard of living in Australia in the late 1970s and 1980s, relative to other Western nations, it could be argued that Australia could no longer attract migrants on economic grounds alone.  Hence, multiculturalism could be seen as a method of attracting migrants on cultural rather than economic grounds.  This argument, however, neglects the fact that since the Second World War Australia has never had difficulty attracting both English-speaking and non-English-speaking migrants.  There have always been more people interested in coming to Australia than places available.  The introduction of multiculturalism, therefore, does not appear to be necessary for Australia to continue to attract migrants.

The concept of the unaligned "ethnic vote" appears to have been an important catalyst for an increase in political support for multiculturalism.  The concept of the ethnic vote arose as part of a broader trend in which minority interest groups, such as environmentalists, peace groups, etc., were able to capture and influence the political agenda by claiming that they could deliver votes to the political party which met their demands.  Although there is no evidence that ethnic leaders can actually command the votes of diverse and pluralistic ethnic groups, politicians started funding groups in an attempt to attract -- or buy -- ethnic votes.  Most voters, the "silent majority", were increasingly ignored by politicians and political parties.  Instead, politicians began to compete with each other by promising more and more support for interest groups in the form of policies, grants and influence in the political process.  The competition for ethnic votes was made with little or no thought for the long-term impact on the political process or the Australian community of this "pork-barrelling".

The FitzGerald Report acknowledged this trend and commented that:

Similarly, no-one disputes the right of a politician to chase votes, but vote-chasing on immigration matters tends to be directed at the "ethnic" vote and not at the constituency at large.  Over the long term, this practice actually disadvantages immigrants because it engenders resentment on the part of other Australians. ⁽⁸⁾

The implementation of multiculturalism coincided with, and possibly facilitated, a radical shift in immigration policy.  During the late 1970s and 1980s an increasing number and proportion of unskilled migrants came to Australia under the family reunion category from third world nations, with a corresponding decline in skilled immigration from English-speaking countries (see Appendix 6).  During this period the Federal Government, quite correctly, also expanded Australia's refugee programme.

Ethnic groups became bigger, new ethnic groups became established and hence the perceived voting power of such groups continually increased.  Thus, while the perceived voting power of other interest groups such as the peace/conservation movement might rise or fall, ethnic groups became increasingly powerful through increased voting numbers, and received large amounts of public funding, grants and services.  Thus, multiculturalism may have snowballed, with increased funding and each new concession by governments making ethnic groups more powerful, more articulate and better able to exact further favours.

An alternative explanation of the rise of multiculturalism as an ideology was offered by Raymond Sestito in The Politics of Multiculturalism. ⁽⁹⁾  Sestito argues, quite correctly in my opinion, that politicians wanting to attract the ethnic vote actually encouraged the formation of ethnic elites and ethnic organisations, in an attempt to win the support and votes of entire ethnic groups.  They used public funds to assist in the formation and development of ethnic groups and ethnic structures.  Sestito argues that the development of multiculturalism was essentially facilitated by politicians rather than the general public or ethnic groups.

With the advent of massive taxpayer subsidisation, ethnic groups themselves began to rely on the state to provide grants to fund their operations, activities and festivals, and no longer needed to generate their own funds.  The vast majority of public ethnic festivals and celebrations conducted in Australia today are paid for, in part or in full, by the Australian taxpayer.

Regardless of the various explanations that can be put forward for the rise of multiculturalism, there is no doubt that by the 1980s a number of powerful interest groups had become dependent on this policy and its continued and expanded public funding.  For the purposes of this paper this coalition of interests, including ethnic organisations, ethnic bureaucracies, trade union leaders, academics, sections of the media, etc., will be called the "multicultural lobby.

DEFINITIONS OF MULTICULTURAL EXPENDITURE

Discussion of multicultural funding in the absence of a clear and accepted definition of multiculturalism is inevitably difficult, and problems in classifying expenditures make things worse.  Moreover, in the past fifteen years the state has rapidly expanded into new areas of activity and is no longer confined to traditional areas of intervention, such as economic, defence and income support measures.  The state currently is involved in almost all areas in the community, in welfare, leisure, the arts and sports.  Such an increased role is characterised by increased intervention through the provision of services, legal rules and funding.  Hence, current multicultural services could be seen as being primarily a function of the increasing role of the "welfare state" rather than the result of a deliberate policy decision by government.  Alternatively, one must question whether post-arrival services for migrants are a product of the policy of multiculturalism or whether they are independent from multicultural policies and merely reflect the fact that Australia has a large scale immigration programme.

Without clear definitions it is difficult to define a multicultural programme as distinct from a non-multicultural programme.  Indeed, the Galbally Report in 1978 and more recent government research reports use terms such as "multicultural", "migrant welfare" and "post-arrival services" almost interchangeably. ⁽¹⁰⁾  Certainly, many services for migrants could reasonably be classified as any or all of those three.  On the other hand, all services to the general community which cater for cultural identity can be called multicultural.

Data on multicultural expenditure are, therefore, scattered throughout various programmes and services, in a wide range of formats, and are difficult to categorise, analyse or discuss.  The decision to classify various expenditure components is basically left up to officers within each department.  A consistent official method of approach to the topic is badly needed.

In its absence, a set criterion is used to distinguish between multicultural and non-multicultural expenditure in this paper.  All expenditure in which a major component involves explicitly encouraging ethnic groups and migrants to preserve aspects of their traditional culture, customs and modes of behaviour, and all post-arrival services and welfare programmes specifically designed for migrants or the ethnic community, will be treated as multicultural -- whether they could be considered to be welfare in nature or simply multicultural vote-buying by politicians.  This broad category includes expenditure on ethnic education, welfare, arts, recreation, media, health and specialised units in the bureaucracy which deal with ethnic affairs.

There are three main reasons for this broad definition of expenditure as multicultural.  First, all post-arrival services and ethnic grants and some migrant welfare services are multicultural in that they endorse and propagate the ideology of multiculturalism and as such are multicultural in a descriptive sense.  Clearly, a nation with a large-scale immigration programme needs to have some post-arrival and welfare services.  But they need not be multicultural in nature.  They can be assimilationist, integrationist or governed by some other policy orientation.  In Australia at the present time all post-arrival and many welfare services are multicultural.

Second, multiculturalism affects the way a given service is delivered.  For example, multicultural services use ethnic or racial categorisation to ration the provision of various services.  By contrast, other non-multicultural services to the community focus on objective criteria, such as income, to ration services between individuals.  Multicultural services are often duplicated between ethnic groups, with each group receiving a range of services which cater specifically and exclusively for that group.

Thirdly, multiculturalism as a policy affects the extent of services provided to the community.  Multiculturalism envisages a prominent role for the state and argues for the provision of a wide and expanding range of services by the state.  By contrast, other approaches to service provision may envisage that a lower level or different type of service would be provided by the state.  Multiculturalism as an ideology argues for a larger, rather than a smaller, role for the state.

Obviously, not all government programmes coming under this broad definition of multicultural expenditure are equally influenced by the ideology of multiculturalism.  Nor do they all serve equally to propagate that ideology.  Hence, the broad definition of multicultural expenditure must be supplemented by a narrow definition, capturing multicultural services which may be described as being primarily for the purpose of increasing community awareness and acceptance of the ideology of multiculturalism (although these services may also have some welfare or post-arrival component).  Expenditure which comes under this narrow definition tends to be cultural and recreational in nature.  Such expenditure could also be viewed as being a multicultural vote-buying exercise by governments.

To clarify the two definitions:  government programmes such as aged care for ethnic Australians involve primarily welfare expenditure, with a multicultural component.  Such programmes fit the broad definition of multicultural.  They are provided from general government funds which provide services for the whole community, but they target particular ethnic groups.  By contrast, a grant to an ethnic group to hold a public festival is primarily designed to promote the concept of multiculturalism.  Such expenditure comes within the narrow definition.

Multicultural services, in both broad and narrow senses, are provided by governments in three ways:

1. Mainstream expenditure involves the provision of services for the ethnic community, within the context of a service open to the whole community.  Mainstream services aim to improve access for ethnic groups to government general services (through the use of interpreters, etc.).
2. Ethno-specific services are programmes aimed specifically at the ethnic community or a particular ethnic group.  This category includes post-arrival services, since they are funded through programmes specifically designed for the ethnic community.  These services also tend to be welfare type expenditures.
3. Government grants allocated directly to ethnic communities to operate their own programmes.  Such expenditures often have both a welfare/post-arrival and a strong multicultural component.

This paper will attempt to categorise all data into one of these categories and data will be cross referenced with the broad or narrow classification.  The table (below) illustrates the classification.  All expenditures will fit into an "expenditure type", denoting how the service is delivered, and into a definitional category, denoting the extent to which multiculturalism is apparent in a given programme.  This method of classification has two further advantages.  Firstly, it is based on current government accounting formats, so data are more readily available from government reports.  Secondly, it provides, at least in principle, an objective method of distinguishing between legitimate welfare expenditure and multicultural vote-buying.

Classification of Multicultural Expenditure

Expenditure Type	Broad Definition	Narrow Definition
Mainstream	X	X
Ethno-Specific	X	X
Grants	X	X

In practice the distinction is blurred, not least because the multicultural lobby since the 1970s has used key terms such as "multicultural", "welfare" and "post-arrival" services interchangeably.  For example, governments pay millions of dollars each year to ethnic groups to hold various festivals and celebrations.  In 1987-88 the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission allocated $7,000 for administrative costs of an "Italian Arts Festival". ⁽¹¹⁾  The lack of clear definitions allows the multicultural lobby to claim that such grants are a necessary part of welfare expenditure.  In more general terms the multicultural lobby can legitimise all multicultural expenditures by labelling them as essential welfare services, regardless of the details.  Indeed, criticism of specific features of multicultural funding is often construed by the multicultural lobby as an attack on the concept of the welfare state, if not as evidence of racialism in those making the criticism.  Clearly, the multicultural lobby benefits from the lack of clear definitions which distinguish essential welfare/post-arrival expenditures from non-essential/frivolous expenditures.

Attempts by the multicultural lobby to confuse the distinctions between key terms should not be allowed to inhibit debate about multicultural expenditure.  Under the classification employed in this monograph, the grant for an arts festival would be classified as a grant because in a descriptive sense that is the format in which such expenditures appear in government accounting records.  This grant would also be classified under the narrow definition of multiculturalism because, in the opinion of the author, the primary purpose of this grant appears to be multicultural rather than welfare in nature. ⁽¹²⁾  The question whether multicultural programmes coming under the narrow definition can be justified will be discussed in Chapter Four and the Conclusion.

Within the context of such classifications and definitions of multicultural expenditures:

Chapter One analyses the availability of data on multicultural expenditure and current difficulties experienced by governments in ascertaining the range and extent of such expenditure.

Chapter Two examines ways in which governments have attempted to control multicultural expenditure and assesses the impact on it of immigration.  It also examines the impact of the last two Federal budgets on multicultural services, the subsequent public debate and the FitzGerald Report.

Chapter Three analyses grants made to ethnic groups by the Victorian Government and considers the factors that appear to influence the distribution of such funds.

Chapter Four looks at how multiculturalism has been implemented in Australia, and attempts to define the relative importance of the components of multiculturalism.

The four chapters cover expenditure by the Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government and 148 municipalities in Victoria ⁽¹³⁾ which responded to a Victorian survey of municipalities, and Victorian Regional Commissions.

---

1 AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE:  PROCEDURES, PROBLEMS AND FISCAL ANARCHY

The acquisition of data on multicultural expenditure for this monograph proved to be a difficult task, owing to the inability of the various levels of government to provide data on the full range and extent of expenditure in this area.  Governments often find it hard to provide details about various spending programmes, but they seem to have particular difficulty in providing details of multicultural expenditure.  Repeatedly, it was indicated by individual departments and municipalities that the current level of funding could not be determined.  Departmental officers were often able only to provide guesses about the nature and extent of their departments' expenditure.  Multicultural funding seems to be in a state of fiscal anarchy.

The main reason for this seems to be the definitional problems discussed above, but there also seem to be serious deficiencies in current government accounting methods.  Such deficiencies affect all government spending and not just multicultural programmes.  For this reason it is important to assess government accounting practices before we proceed.

In 1987, some Federal Government departments still used the "Line Format" accounting system. ⁽¹⁴⁾  This system identifies expenditure as it is allocated to various departments and sections within such departments.  Data are provided with separate items for salaries, overtime, pay-roil tax, equipment, publications, motor vehicles, travelling expenses, postal/telephone costs etc.  However, no data are provided on the use of such funds once they have been allocated.  No measurement of the output of a department exists.

The line format system mirrors the structure of a department rather than providing data on what the department does.  When data can be obtained on the department's activities, such as an ethno-specific programme or series of grants, they do not reflect the total cost of providing the service, because other costs, such as labour and materials, are spread over many items in the accounting format.  For example, in 1985-86 the Commonwealth Department of Community Services, utilising line format accounting, was able to provide information on $4.0 million in grants to ethnic nursing homes. ⁽¹⁵⁾  But the cost of this programme is in fact far greater, because data on the costs of administration, materials, etc. are not a component of this grant.  They are effectively hidden in other items of the Departmental accounts.

By the early 1980s such deficiencies were becoming apparent to governments, which responded by introducing a system of accounting called "programme budgeting".  In 1987, this was used by most Federal departments, the Victorian Government and some Victorian municipalities.  Programme budgeting aims to redress the problems of the line format approach.  First, items are divided into separate programmes, rather than categories indicating the internal division of funds in a department, so the total cost of a given programme is visible.  Second, measures of output are included, and are linked to the inputs to a department.  This imposes some measure of performance on a programme.

But even departments and municipalities using programme budgeting found it very difficult to provide data on multicultural expenditure.  Indeed the Victorian Government, which uses program budgeting, encountered problems similar to those of Commonwealth departments using the line format.  This was acknowledged by the Victorian Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Mr Spyker, who argued that such deficiencies arose because programme budgeting was a relatively new system, and that data would become readily available as the system was streamlined and updated over the next few years. ⁽¹⁶⁾  In relation to all, not just multicultural, grants and subsidies, the Victorian Auditor-General reported in 1986 that some departments' financial records "did not clearly identify payments which they made for individual grants and subsidies".  On the accountability of government programmes in general, the Auditor-General stated that:

There is no standard code of practice regulating grants and subsidies by departments.  As a result, widespread inconsistencies in accounting, reporting, auditing requirements and monitoring procedures were evident in the administration of grants and subsidies. ⁽¹⁷⁾

Clearly, a massive improvement is needed before the system of programme budgeting is able to provide detailed and accurate data on government expenditure programmes in general and multicultural expenditure in particular.

Calculation of government expenditure is further complicated by transfers between levels of government and between departments within each level of government.  For example, the Victorian Government "trust fund" has four distinct categories, listing Commonwealth Funds, State Government Funds, Joint Commonwealth/State Funds and Miscellaneous Funds.  In 1985-86 over $35 billion passed in and out of the Fund, ⁽¹⁸⁾ with such funds coming from and going to a large number of sources.  Such funds often come from other pools of funds, and go to smaller pools held by funding recipients.

This pooling of funds is essentially for accounting reasons, but once funds are pooled, it is difficult to trace the origin of such monies. ⁽¹⁹⁾  Hence, individual recipients of funding, both government and non-government, were often unable to provide data on the immediate source of funding.  The Victorian Auditor-General acknowledged difficulty in this area:

Identification of all payments received from Commonwealth sources.  At present it is cumbersome to trace payments in the Treasurer's Statement that are funded by the Commonwealth because of the diversity of terms and conditions applicable to the various grants and subsidies. ⁽²⁰⁾

During the course of research for this monograph, I became increasingly aware of major deficiencies in accountability of all government programmes.  Referring to the annual allocation of $3,000 million in grants and subsidies, the Victorian Auditor-General stated:

The level of grant and subsidy payments could not be readily quantified and is not adequately disclosed in the Treasurer's Statement or department financial statements. ⁽²¹⁾

In addition, in 1986 the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations found, in relation to multicultural expenditure, that:

Research carried out in the course of this review has led to the conclusion that at present there are major deficiencies within all three spheres of government in the methods of recording direct and indirect expenditure related to the provision of services to immigrants.

The absence of reliable financial data in a comparative format hampers a better understanding of the contributions rendered by each sphere of government in the overall settlement process.

Furthermore, this deficiency makes it difficult for governments to pursue a constructive debate in regard to the costs of providing services to immigrants or the impact of immigrants on services.

Research also failed to discover any attempts by governments to develop a methodology for estimating the expenditure associated with providing direct and indirect services for immigrants ... appropriate accounting methods should be developed. ⁽²²⁾

Definitional ambiguities and failures in accounting practices are not the only reasons data on multicultural expenditure are hard to obtain.  First, in recent years there has been a strong trend towards mainstream funding, with the result that multicultural expenditure is increasingly hidden in conventional expenditure programmes.  It is therefore very difficult to ascertain the actual levels of multicultural expenditure.

Second, there appears to be little effective coordination between the various State and Federal Government units that deal specifically with multicultural issues.  For example, the now-disbanded Institute of Multicultural Affairs was established by the Federal Government in 1979.  The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Act 1985 outlined the statutory objectives of the Institute.  These included increasing community awareness of cultural diversity, highlighting the benefits of cultural diversity and improving understanding and tolerance.  No mention was made in the statutory objectives, however, of providing accurate and detailed information on the cost of multicultural programmes. ⁽²³⁾

Likewise, the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission was established to advise the Victorian Minister for Ethnic Affairs and to consult with departments and ethnic groups to assist in promoting policies which deal with ethnic affairs. ⁽²⁴⁾  Such units coordinate departments and multicultural services, as well as producing information on the need for increased community awareness and funding for multiculturalism.  But this coordinating role has not included the establishment of a comprehensive data bank on the costs to the taxpayer of multicultural programmes.  In collecting information on multicultural expenditure for this study, all departments, both State and Federal, had to be contacted directly.

In conclusion, the onus lies with all governments to provide detailed data on the costs of policy and to allow for informed debate and government accountability.  The two main systems of accounting, line format and programme budgeting, are deficient in this respect.  Both systems fail to provide appropriate data on the costs of government policy initiatives.  Transfers between the various levels of government and between departments and agencies are difficult to trace, and this only compounds the lack of accountability.

Fiscal anarchy is the norm in multicultural programmes.  Besides problems of definition, inadequate government accounting procedures, and the increasing use of mainstream funding in which multicultural expenditure is hidden in conventional expenditure programmes, the bodies that are meant to monitor multicultural programmes, such as the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, have not attempted to calculate the costs.

---

2 MULTICULTURAL EXPENDITURE, FISCAL RESTRAINT AND IMMIGRATION

Accounting systems currently employed by government do not indicate the real level of multicultural expenditure.  Sufficient data currently exist to enable governments to assess accurately macro variables such as aggregate expenditure at a government or departmental level.  Indeed, the introduction of programme budgeting has allowed government to go one step further and to assess the cost of a particular programme.  However, details of expenditure at the sub-programme, component and sub-component level on the whole cannot be obtained.

Governments therefore use non-accounting techniques to control multicultural expenditure.  For example, in 1985, State and Federal Ministers responsible for ethnic affairs decided to review annually the provision of multicultural services.  Each State established a working party to acquire data for the annual Ministers' conference.  The working parties rely on a network of informal contacts in various departments.  Data are also acquired from various State and Federal government units established to monitor multicultural services. ⁽²⁵⁾  Ministers use the information gained to develop policy and guidelines for multicultural expenditure. ⁽²⁶⁾  In this way politicians have attempted to retain control over actual expenditure, despite current deficiencies in the availability of financial data.

Funding patterns nevertheless reveal frequent duplication and overlapping between departments funding multicultural programmes.  For example, ethnic artists and art in Victoria in 1985-86 received $28,500 in three grants from the Ethnic Affairs Commission, ⁽²⁷⁾ $45,000 in one grant from the Department of Local Government, ⁽²⁸⁾ and $380,200 through fifty-one grants from the Ministry for the Arts. ⁽²⁹⁾  Ethnic artists and arts also receive substantial funding, through hundreds of grants, from the Australia Council, local municipalities and the now terminated Commonwealth Employment Program.  The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations complained of "overlap and duplication among the programmes of the three spheres of government and the non-government sector ... These inadequacies in service provision arise from poor coordination and lack of awareness". ⁽³⁰⁾

All this means that politicians, bureaucrats and ethnic groups seldom appreciate the nature and extent of multicultural services.  This can vitiate attempts to control the direction and extent of funding by expanding or cutting back on visible multicultural programmes.  For example, in the 1986-87 budget, the Federal Government was trying to curb overall expenditure.  A number of specific multicultural programmes were initially cut back or abolished.  The English as a Second Language Program was cut back and part of this function passed on to the States.  The amalgamation of the ABC and SBS was proposed, although it was ultimately rejected by the Federal Government after pressure from the multicultural lobby.  The Institute of Multicultural Affairs was disbanded, its functions being transferred to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. ⁽³¹⁾

It appeared that multicultural services had been severely cut.  There was an outcry from ethnic leaders, trade union leaders, academics, bureaucrats and journalists -- the effective and powerful multicultural lobby.  For example, Peter Cole-Adams of The Age argued that the apparent cuts "must be seen as evidence either of a new indifference to the needs of the most vulnerable Australians, or a significant and retrograde change in official philosophy, or of both". ⁽³²⁾  The Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria accused the Hawke government of "betraying" the ethnic communities and decided to hold a protest rally at the Brunswick Town Hall. ⁽³³⁾  The Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne declared that "Multiculturalism has disappeared without a trace in its own Bermuda Triangle". ⁽³⁴⁾

Despite this hysterical campaign by the multicultural lobby, careful examination of the 1986-87 Budget shows that many multicultural programmes (programmes identified in Appendix 1 as having a significant multicultural component) were, in fact, expanded.  Indeed, after adjusting for inflation, the real increase in funds for broad multicultural programmes was 0.9 per cent.  The real increase in funding for narrowly multicultural programmes was a massive 24.1 per cent (see Appendix 1).

By contrast, the 1987-88 Budget did appear to achieve a small decrease in aggregate expenditure under the broad definition of multicultural programmes.  Expenditures under the narrow definition, however, saw another 24 per cent real increase.  Although much of this can be attributed to the Bicentenary, programmes such as the SBS were also increased significantly (see Appendix 1).

The 1987-88 Federal Budget was therefore actually less favourable to the multicultural lobby than that of 1986-87.  But the multicultural lobby received it without the emotive denunciations of the previous year.  One can only speculate why this was so.  Perhaps the multicultural lobby is not well informed about actual multicultural expenditure, and only notices when high-profile programmes are cut back, such as the SBS or English as a Second Language Program.

IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL EXPENDITURE

It is important to assess the impact of immigration policy on multicultural expenditure.  Economic studies show many economic and fiscal benefits of immigration, such as increased consumer demand and economic growth.  But the studies have not included detailed analysis of the fiscal costs of immigration or the effect of the policy of multiculturalism on such costs.  The fiscal effects of immigration policy and multicultural policy need to be assessed so that costs can be minimised and the net benefit to Australia maximised.  One of the few politicians to have acknowledged this publicly is Tom Uren:

All of these factors, when taken together, have profound implications and they present a particular challenge when set in a context of economic constraint. ... From this perspective I would like to comment on a recent suggestion that Australia should double its immigration intake ...

The advocates of higher immigration forget the settlement implications and they appear to me to be blind to the impact and costs. ⁽³⁵⁾

One cannot assess the costs of immigration in isolation, since the cost of the policy of multiculturalism must also be considered.  The FitzGerald Committee seems to have believed that the budget costs of "immigration" are relatively low:

Expenditure on services for immigrant and ethnic communities, as distinct from normal entitlements as residents, is difficult to estimate on the basis of existing research and statistical information, but is generally believed by those working in the field to be very modest. ⁽³⁶⁾

This assessment suggests that the Committee was unable to come to terms with the magnitude of expenditure in this area, as highlighted in Appendices 1 and 7 below.  If anything, it supports the fiscal anarchy hypothesis discussed in Chapter 1.

The policy of multiculturalism has a profound impact on Australian government expenditures on immigration, by increasing allocations to post-arrival, welfare and cultural services.  The relationship between multiculturalism and immigration was discussed in detail in the Introduction.  In general, it is clear that multiculturalism envisages a society where a wide array of -- often inefficient and costly -- government services is allocated in the form of ethno-specific services and grants to the ethnic community.

The fiscal cost to the Australian taxpayer of Federal multicultural services is over $260 million per year.  Given the expenditure of the other levels of government, an estimated $500 million is spent by governments each year on multicultural services and programmes (Appendices 1 and 7).  In June 1988, the Federal Government announced an increase in immigration of 8,000 people, to 140,000 in 1987-88.  Given current multicultural policy, expenditure in this area must therefore increase, with the government providing more English classes, interpreters, ethnic health services, etc.  Under the policy of multiculturalism such services need to be provided in a multicultural way.  Services are duplicated between ethnic groups, since multiculturalism argues that each ethnic group should have its own interpreters, welfare workers, recreation workers, financial advisers, etc.  Clearly this will place an added fiscal burden on governments in the important 1989-90 and later Federal budgets.

The suggested doubling of immigration referred to by Mr Uren seems to have the support of some senior members of the Federal Opposition.  Clearly they have yet to appreciate the fiscal burden multiculturalism places on governments through immigration policy.  Mr Uren's speech also drew criticism from pressure groups whose interests are advanced by the current policy of multiculturalism and increased immigration levels.  For example, Ms Lee Smith, president of the Australian-Asian Community Welfare Organisation, urged politicians to implement substantially higher levels of immigration and claimed that ethnic communities were "on the whole self-sufficient". ⁽³⁷⁾  Such comments indicate the degree of confusion currently existing in this area, which has allowed claims that multiculturalism has little or no fiscal cost to go almost unchallenged.  The lack of detailed information about such costs has also allowed fringe groups to further complicate the debate through the provision of disinformation.

One thing that is clear is that NES (non-English-speaking) migrants generally require a greater level of government assistance than English-speaking migrants, who require little or none.  It is also clear that some NES migrants, such as those from the Middle East and parts of Asia, require more services and government assistance than others from Northern Europe and economically-advanced parts of Asia such as Japan.

Aspects of the fiscal cost of providing extra services to NES migrants were discussed in the Senate in late 1987.  Senators Glen Sheil and John Stone both discussed the cost of providing English language services -- over $50 million per year.  The aggregate cost of providing services for migrants is far greater than the figures quoted in this debate, coming closer to $500 million per year (see Appendices 1 and 7).

However, the exact nature and extent of such services, and the associated costs to the taxpayer, are currently unknown.  The available data will only yield general trends and estimates.

Public discussion of the relative costs to the taxpayer of immigration from various parts of the world is legitimate, especially when one considers the need for continued fiscal austerity by governments, but we should take care to distinguish between the fiscal costs of Australia's important, humanitarian refugee programmes, and those of other forms of immigration.  Unfortunately, a national debate about such aspects of Australia's immigration programme is severely hampered.  Debate is hindered by the lack of accurate data on government expenditure in this area and by the apparent inability of the multicultural lobby to discuss such issues rationally instead of simply labelling critics of multiculturalism as ignorant or racist.

Such issues were discussed in the FitzGerald Report.  The committee's terms of reference included analysis of:

• the relationship between immigration and the economy, including the effects on the labour market and economic development;
• the relationship between immigration and Australia's social and cultural development as a multicultural society;
• the relationship between immigration and key population issues.
• the overall capacity of Australia to receive significant immigration intakes;  and
• the relationship between immigration policies including compliance, and the administrative and legislative processes involved.

THE THREAT TO AUSTRALIA'S IMMIGRATION PROGRAMME

As well as acknowledging that the nature and extent of multicultural expenditure is difficult to assess, the FitzGerald Committee also found that:

Widespread mistrust and failing community consensus threaten community support of immigration. ...

Confusion and mistrust of multiculturalism, focusing on the suspicion that it drove immigration policy, was very broadly articulated. ...

Community attitudes to immigration, even those of its many supporters, reflect confusion, anxiety, criticism and scepticism. ... Public support in some quarters is faltering and community consensus in favour of immigration is at risk. ...

If at the same time the immigration policies of the major parties are themselves seen to be off course and out of step with community needs and attitudes, as is now the case, that threatens the electoral base for continued support for the idea of Australia as a country of immigration. ⁽³⁸⁾

The FitzGerald Report makes it quite clear that the general public links the policy of multiculturalism with immigration policy, and states that community opposition to multiculturalism is so great as to threaten Australia's entire immigration programme.  Despite these unambiguous warnings, the Federal Government has indicated that it intends to ignore the central findings of the Report as they relate to multiculturalism. ⁽³⁹⁾

This head in the sand approach by the Federal Government seems foolish, as Australia is a democracy and through the democratic process governments must ultimately bend to the will of the people.  The Government will eventually be forced by public opinion to modify the policy of multiculturalism.  Unfortunately, if the FitzGerald Committee's findings are correct, any future public backlash against multiculturalism, brought about by Federal Government intransigence on this issue, may also threaten the immigration programme.

Current mechanisms designed to facilitate the flow of information between the bureaucracy and Ministers rely on informal networks and working groups preparing data for an annual Minister's conference.  This ad hoc arrangement means that complete expenditure data are not available, with politicians attempting to control expenditure by developing funding guidelines.  The failure of this system was outlined by the Advisory Committee for Intergovernmental Relations, which showed problems with duplication and overlap in service provision.

Politicians have attempted to regulate such fiscal anarchy by directly changing allocations to various visible multicultural programmes.  However, substantial levels of expenditure operate at a sub-programme component and sub-component level, and therefore are not visible or directly controlled by such political budget measures.  The consequence of this deficiency is that debate about multicultural services is currently ill-informed and based on misconceptions about the nature and extent of multicultural expenditure.

If governments wish to maintain expenditure at current levels they have the choice of:  modifying the policy of multiculturalism;  reducing immigration levels;  or changing the immigration mix (how many migrants come from various places).  Clearly a trade-off situation currently exists between the policy of multiculturalism and immigration levels.  All these factors affect the cost of Australia's immigration programme.

A freeze in immigration levels would in a sense be a decision that the policy of multiculturalism should take precedence over Australia's immigration policy.  This option would deprive Australia of the significant economic benefits that can be gained from increased immigration.

The discredited policy of multiculturalism could be changed by implementing a policy of assimilation and integration, or a policy which saw no active government involvement in this area, except for the provision of post-arrival services allocated on the basis of genuine need (ordinary welfare entitlements would remain).

An alternative approach would be to change the immigration intake in favour of skilled, financially self-reliant and healthy migrants who are proficient in English.  This option was recommended in the FitzGerald Report.  It would require lower levels of government financial assistance and subsidisation, and would dramatically increase the net fiscal benefits to Australia of immigration.  Indeed, the immigration intake could be greatly increased without a corresponding increase in government expenditure in this area.

---

3 THE ALLOCATION OF GRANTS TO ETHNIC GROUPS

In the majority of cases, the allocation of grants to ethnic groups comes under the narrow definition of multicultural expenditure and is regulated directly by politicians and the bureaucracy.  Politicians establish funding guidelines, policies and aggregate expenditure limits.  The bureaucracy implements programmes, with considerable scope to determine the allocation of funds at a sub-programme, component and sub-component level.

Governments attempt to justify grants to ethnic groups with a number of arguments.  For example, they tend to consider that all members of NES ethnic groups are more disadvantaged than English-speaking migrants.  Governments also claim that grants can help redress perceived disadvantages.  As a result, NES ethnic groups are allocated tens of millions of dollars annually.  By contrast, migrants from English-speaking countries receive negligible levels of funding from governments, since they are considered to be far less disadvantaged.  Governments also argue that the use of ethnic groups to implement various welfare/cultural policies and programmes is efficient and saves the taxpayer money.  They claim that the use of voluntary workers etc. reduces costs and thus requires fewer resources to provide a given level of service.

Although such claims may be true in part, there are clear deficiencies in the arguments and methods used to justify and implement large scale funding of ethnic groups.  One major problem is the use of ethnic or racial labels to select groups for funding and to ration available services.  This imputes the same socio-economic characteristics to all members of a given ethnic group.  Such labelling of entire ethnic groups as "disadvantaged" is inaccurate and ignores individual differences.  An ethnic community will usually include individuals who are rich or poor, articulate or inarticulate, educated or uneducated, etc.  Funding based on the labelling of ethnic groups is, therefore, an inefficient and wasteful method of providing government services.  To make matters worse, the more articulate, educated and organised individuals in a given ethnic group are more likely to receive and benefit from such funding than are genuinely disadvantaged individuals.

It is also highly inconsistent for governments to criticise persons who publicly associate various characteristics with ethnic groups, (for example, by claiming that certain ethnic groups are prone to criminal activities) when governments themselves allocate funds by using ethnic labels to identify characteristics of individual Australians.  Such labelling by governments is clearly racist in nature and serves to encourage the wider application of such labelling to all individuals in a given ethnic group.

THE CRITERIA FOR FUNDING

Further difficulties arise when we examine the nature and application of the criteria used to allocate funds to ethnic groups.  One important set of criteria was developed by the peak advisory body to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the late 1970s and early 1980s -- the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs.  Having claimed that "Government assistance is a necessary factor in achieving a multicultural society", the Council proposed the following principles and criteria for government funding:

• proficiency in the English language by members of the ethnic group -- as proficiency increases, so should their ability to make use of mainstream services;
• history of migration to Australia or the period of residence of the group -- this provides an indication of the proportion of the group that is still subject to the problems of initial settlement;
• the existence of suitable support systems in the general community, or the capacity for self help within the ethnic group. ⁽⁴⁰⁾

Let us examine these criteria in relation to grants made to specific ethnic groups by the Victorian government in one year.  (The supporting figures are presented in Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5.)

The first principle is that NES migrants have greater needs than English-speaking migrants and other residents of Australia.  As a result, one would expect governments to direct grants towards NES migrants.  Analysis of grants by the Victorian government confirms that this is the case, with migrants from English-speaking countries being allocated only two grants totalling a mere $2,000, out of a total of 380 grants of $1,318,625.  Clearly the language background of ethnic groups is a crucial criterion when funds are allocated.  This is borne out by the figures in Appendix 2 for the actual level of grants to NES groups compared to funding for English-speaking groups.

The Council's second criterion is the history of residence of each group.  Here, one would expect the bulk of grants to go to recently arrived groups rather than to established groups.  However, comparisons of the ratios of grants to the numbers of recently arrived settlers, expressed as dollars per head, show great variation.  Relatively new ethnic groups often receive substantially less per head than established groups that have been in Australia since the 1950s.  For example, Victorian government grants to ethnic groups in 1985-86 involved the allocation of $1,213.50 per head for newly-arrived Greek migrants, compared with $22.24 per head for Chinese migrants;  $330.60 per head for Turkish migrants;  $515.48 per head for Italians and zero for many recently arrived ethnic groups from Africa, Europe and North America (see Appendix 3).  No clear relationship exists between the numbers of new settlers and Victorian government funding for ethnic groups.

The third criterion is the existence or otherwise of suitable support systems.  There seems to be a large degree of overlap with the preceding two criteria:  the better established and more English-speaking a migrant community, the more likely, one presumes, there are to be "suitable support systems".  In practice, a number of conditions need to be established before a group can obtain funding on the basis of this criterion;  but the conditions are not clearly defined.

A number of other, inter-related factors could be considered by governments when grants are allocated.  It is possible, for example, that some ethnic groups do not want grants and therefore, do not apply for funding.  Research for this paper uncovered no evidence of ethnic groups from Czechoslovakia, Romania and the Philippines applying for funds.  By contrast, ethnic groups from Turkey, Yugoslavia and Egypt actively seek, and subsequently obtain, government funding (see Appendix 3).

Again, the degree of assimilation could also be a factor in determining funding.  Migrants from the UK and North America assimilate readily and do not seek grants.  Other groups, such as the German, Austrian and Dutch communities, which also readily assimilate into the community, do seek and receive funding.  On the other hand, some ethnic groups which do not readily assimilate, such as the Japanese or the Indians, did not receive grants (Appendix 3).  Clearly, group attitudes vary.  The relationship between propensity to assimilate and funding is not strong.

The size of an ethnic community is another important possibility, especially when one considers the correlation between the size of a group and voting numbers.  Indeed, one would expect that larger ethnic groups in Australia would generally be more successful in obtaining grants, given the well-established propensity of politicians to attempt to attract or buy the "ethnic vote".  One would expect that grants to various groups would, therefore, vary in proportion to the size of each group.  Yet analysis of grants made to Victorian ethnic groups, expressed in dollars per head, shows no clear relationship between the size of a group and grants.  The Indo-Chinese, for example, received $6.83 per head in grants, while Yugoslavians received $1.20, Italians 0.98¢, Dutch 0.05¢, Turkish $11.07 and UK/Irish 0.01¢ (see Appendix 4).  Clearly the size of an ethnic group has little to do with its ability to obtain funding.

The links between politicians who determine funding policy and ethnic groups is another possibility.  Most political scientists agree that, in Victoria, the Greek community is strongly involved with the Australian Labor Party, ⁽⁴¹⁾ which has been in power in Victoria since 1982.  Analysis of grants indicates that the Greek community is one of the more successful ethnic groups.  However, Italians, Yugoslavs and Arabs, who appear to be less active in the ALP, ⁽⁴²⁾ have also been relatively successful in obtaining grants.  Indeed, the Indo-Chinese community, which is generally not sympathetic towards the ALP, ⁽⁴³⁾ is also quite successful in obtaining funds (see Appendices 2, 3, 4).  There is no evidence that ethnic group links to political parties in government influence the distribution of grant funds.

In Victoria, some ethnic groups concentrate in particular areas -- sometimes over 5 per cent of an ethnic group in a single municipality.  This might indicate variation in a group's propensity to form ghettos or assimilate into the wider Australian community.  There is a weak correlation between tendency to concentrate and funding per head (see Appendix 5).  This correlation is not easy to explain.  Concentrating in areas could reflect a number of factors, such as the degree of assimilation, internal cohesion and socio-economic status, one or more of which might affect the ability of a group to pursue funding actively.

The organisational structures of ethnic groups vary considerably.  Their organisational core might comprise a small, highly active group or a large, dispersed committee.  Whatever the structure, the organisational capacity of ethnic groups seems an important factor in determining their success in obtaining grants.  Success requires knowledge of the availability of grants, the procedures to be followed in applying for them, and perhaps the factors that influence the funding decisions.  This involves research and the development of proposals on the appropriate application forms.  In addition, groups must have the capacity to administer grant money in line with criteria established under each grant.

Examination of applications for grants and actual grants by the Ministry of the Arts, for example, shows considerable variation in group success.  For example, Turkish groups applied for seven grants, of which four were funded. ⁽⁴⁴⁾  The Indo-Chinese, Yugoslavians and Italians each applied for one grant, and each was successful. ⁽⁴⁵⁾  By contrast, Chinese and Central East Asian groups each applied for two grants but all were unsuccessful. ⁽⁴⁶⁾  That organisational capacity is an important factor is supported by analysis of grants made to the Greek community by the Ethnic Affairs Commission.  This shows that ten out of a total of twenty-four grants allocated to the community went to the Greek Orthodox Church, ⁽⁴⁷⁾ whose existing organisational skills have enabled it to obtain significant funding.

A further criterion, often cited in government literature when welfare and non-welfare grants are allocated, is that of "needs".  Despite the essentially subjective nature of the concept, ⁽⁴⁸⁾ governments often fund projects intended to ascertain the "needs" of an ethnic community.  Usually needs are "discovered" and established by such studies, with the government-funded report usually recommending further government funding. ⁽⁴⁹⁾  In general, governments consider NES migrants to have the greatest "needs" and as a result they receive the vast majority of grants.  The same consideration holds for groups which have recently arrived in Australia, while judgments by politicians and bureaucrats about the economic status of a group also play a part.  In particular, unemployment rates within individual groups are used by some politicians and bureaucrats as a measure of needs.  Hence, high unemployment rates in the Lebanese and Indo-Chinese communities are an important factor when grants are allocated and partly explain why such groups are successful in obtaining funds.

DUPLICATION AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

Many government departments and all levels of government are now involved in funding NES ethnic groups.  Since there is no generally accepted definition of multiculturalism or clear statement of the aims of multicultural funding, it is difficult to say whether any given multicultural grant has been successful or not.

Examination of available data shows that there is little or no communication between the various funding bodies.  The majority of recipients also seem unaware of the overall nature and extent of government funding of ethnic groups.  With the existing array of uncoordinated funding bodies, well-organised ethnic groups and multicultural projects are able to obtain grants relatively easily.  For example, the Footscray Community Arts Centre in Melbourne was upgraded in 1986 specifically for multicultural arts, and was able to attract funding from no fewer than 19 different Federal and State Government sources.  Less organised and less articulate groups, on the other hand, are less successful because they are unaware of where and how to obtain funds.

The funding of ethnic groups has taken on a "sacred cow" status with the leaders of some ethnic groups, Federal and State Government units which deal specifically with ethnic issues, politicians, left-wing intellectuals and sections of the media.  Criticism of certain parts of multicultural funding is usually portrayed by such organisations or individuals as racist.  The word "racist", which is rarely defined, is used as a "weapon of indignation" and to avoid open discussion and debate about aspects of multiculturalism. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

In the absence of that discussion and debate, governments and bureaucracies are able to expand the number and type of grants allocated to ethnic groups with little or no public criticism and a minimum of scrutiny.  Since there is a large degree of competition between government bodies to allocate funds, with ethnic groups competing to attract funding, it is not surprising that some ethnic groups are highly successful and that massive duplication has developed in the allocation of grants to ethnic groups.  This highlights the need for constant public appraisal of government programmes and activities.

To sum up the findings of this chapter:

Examination of the allocation of grants indicates that success in obtaining funds is primarily a function of the language background of a group, its organisational skills, and whether the government of the day considers it to be in "need".

There appears to be no clear evidence of a link between funding and current immigration trends.  Since the Galbally Report in 1978 one major reason for funding ethnic groups has been the desire on the part of governments to assist newly arrived migrants with post-arrival services and support.  That desire has not been adequately fulfilled.

There also appears to be massive duplication in the allocation of grants to ethnic groups and for multicultural activities.  In this respect the pattern of grants by the Victorian government indicates a clear policy failure and is further proof that multicultural funding is in a state of fiscal anarchy.  Government ignorance about actual expenditure has resulted in loss of government control of funding in the multicultural area.

---

4 MULTICULTURALISM IN PRACTICE

In the years since its political implementation, no comprehensive analysis of multiculturalism has been developed.  As the Introduction demonstrated, this is not surprising given the conceptual fluidity of its attendant ideology which makes it "all things to all men".  Yet despite this definitional ambiguity, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in the last decade promoting multiculturalism, the multicultural lobby has not gained broad community support for it -- a fact clearly noted by the FitzGerald Report.  Whether this lack of support reflects community concern about the implementation of the policy, rather than the ideology itself, is not clear.  This chapter will examine how the policy of multiculturalism has been implemented in practice.  In the process, we will gain further insights into the nature of the ideology and the relative importance of its components.

THE CORPORATIST STRATEGY

Multiculturalism in practice has involved the implementation of a number of policies which appear to be based on the ideology of the corporate state.  These include state funding of peak organisations, such as ethnic groups, as a way to implement government policies and strategies.  Since some ethnic groups are funded while others are not, the current funding of ethnic groups has had the effect of presenting a distorted picture of the cultural life of the nation.  The use of grants in this manner has given the state greater power to control the nature and direction of cultural life in Australia.

The implementation of multiculturalism has also involved the establishment of a powerful legal apparatus with new regulatory organisations to assist in policy implementation and to impose toleration in the Australian community. ⁽⁵¹⁾  This apparatus includes legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity for Commonwealth Authorities Act, as well as the establishment of bureaucratic and interventionist organisations, such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (prior to 1986, the Human Rights Commission).  In the case of the Commission a subjective agenda of so-called "human rights" has been implemented, with the Commission acting as both a prosecutor and judge.

In 1987-88, the New South Wales Labor government passed legislation (which was not proclaimed) specifically to inhibit discussion and criticism of aspects of multiculturalism and immigration policy.  The new Liberal/National coalition government in NSW decided to continue to use the legal system to inhibit public debate about some features of multiculturalism.  The government justified this decision by saying that it believed the Bill did not go far enough in inhibiting public debate. ⁽⁵²⁾

Although the policy of multiculturalism preaches the need for increased tolerance, the multicultural lobby has proven to be highly intolerant of criticism of multiculturalism.  Criticism by members of the community, in voicing their concerns about multiculturalism or specific parts of it, nearly always results in a torrent of personal abuse and accusations of racism, with such claims often being associated with calls for censorship to inhibit such criticism. ⁽⁵³⁾  Here, as elsewhere, the multicultural lobby attacks the individual rather than discusses the issues.

Many prominent and highly respected Australians have been accused of being racist by the multicultural lobby.  The list of so-called "racists", includes the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr John Howard, Professor Geoffrey Blainey of the University of Melbourne, Mr Bob Hogg, Federal Secretary of the Australian Labor Party and Mr Hugh Morgan, the prominent Australian businessman. ⁽⁵⁴⁾

By early 1988 the multicultural lobby had begun to appreciate that the habitual description of perceived opponents as "racists" had not increased public support for multiculturalism.  Indeed, it is now asking its supporters not to use the word "racist" in public debates.  For example, in its submission to the FitzGerald Inquiry, the Office of Multicultural Affairs stated that "Calling people who have doubts about multicultural policies 'racists' is often incorrect and mostly counter-productive". ⁽⁵⁵⁾  Criticism of multiculturalism is now more likely to be dismissed as "misinformed" or "ignorant" -- regardless of whether these terms are justified.  Thus South Australian Labor Senator Nick Bolkus argued that the FitzGerald Inquiry, which was established by the Federal ALP Government, did not understand the concept of multiculturalism. ⁽⁵⁶⁾

In general, such attacks on individual Australians and on freedom of expression indicate that, for many in the multicultural lobby, the ideology of multiculturalism takes precedence over the concepts of free speech and democracy.  Professor Blainey drew attention to the dangers of these attacks upon liberty of expression when he stated that

The essence of democracy is that no subject is too hazardous to be discussed. ... Once a democracy concedes that at certain times certain topics ... are too dangerous, then it is ceasing to be a democracy. ⁽⁵⁷⁾

THE SOCIALIST DIMENSION

There are also links between multiculturalism in practice and the ideology of socialism.  Both aim to facilitate equality of outcome, rather than the liberal notion of equality of opportunity.  Under multiculturalism, the socialist concept of the economic inequality of classes has been replaced by the concept of economic and social inequality of ethnic groups.  Both urge state intervention to facilitate equality of outcome between groups.  For example, equality of outcome featured prominently in the Federal Government's White Paper on higher education, released in July 1988, which stated:

The equity goals of institutions should be based on an analysis of the nature and level of disadvantage experienced by different client groups in the institution's student population and wider catchment area ...

Future general funding allocations will have direct regard to the progress made by institutions towards achieving agreed equity goals. ⁽⁵⁸⁾

Interestingly, the paper does not discuss reducing the representation of those ethnic groups, such as the Chinese, who are "over-represented" in higher education;  but logically this will have to happen if other groups are not to remain "under-represented".

It is likely that the quality of education in Australia will be reduced if the intake of higher education institutions becomes based in part on ethnicity rather than academic merit.  Positive discrimination in favour of selected ethnic groups in higher education institutions will supplement positive discrimination which now exists in the allocation of grants, provision of assistance in Government employment programmes, such as "Jobstart", the funding of secondary schools and in other government funding programmes generally.

The Federal Government denies that such positive discrimination exists in government programmes.  However, a large number of Federal Government programmes (cited in Appendix 7) involve positive discrimination in favour of certain ethnic groups which have been selected by the Federal Government for preferential funding.  In this regard the ideology of multiculturalism has adopted and implemented the socialist aim of equality of outcome between various ethnic groups.

LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM

The practical implementation of multiculturalism indicates that liberalism is not an important component of multiculturalism.  The massive funding of ethnic groups, the manipulation of Australia's cultural life, and the establishment of a network of laws and interventionist and bureaucratic bodies, act to impede the freedom of the individual and freedom of speech.  The effect is to increase the power of the state relative to the individual.  Positive discrimination for selected ethnic groups, which necessarily involves discrimination against other ethnic groups (and the individuals who comprise them), restricts equality of opportunity.

State intervention to facilitate ethnic pluralism is the opposite of the liberal notion of pluralism, which considers pluralism as a product of the activities of individuals (by themselves or in voluntary association) who are free from undue forms of state coercion.  State and bureaucratic preoccupation with groups, rather than the individual, is not a liberal principle.  While paying "lip service" to the philosophy of liberalism, multiculturalism is strongly opposed to it.

Superficially, multiculturalism in practice appears to follow the conservative principle of preserving the manners, customs and traditions of various ethnic groups.  However, multiculturalism involves support for only selected features of ethnic culture.  Ethnic food, dance and music are supported under the policy of multiculturalism, but other facets of ethnic culture, for example, preserving the traditional role of women in Muslim culture, have been actively opposed by the state.  Hence, a large proportion of grants going to Middle Eastern ethnic groups goes to Arab women's groups, with the aim of such funding to increase self-esteem, independence and support structures for Arab women relative to their male counterparts.  Multiculturalism involves the manipulation of, as well as support for, ethnic culture.

Multiculturalism also tends to support the culture, traditions and customs of ethnic groups in isolation.  For example, Greek migrants are encouraged to preserve the culture of Greece twenty to forty years ago. ⁽⁵⁹⁾  By preserving limited versions of culture, multiculturalism has adopted only parts of the philosophy of conservatism.

THE POLITICAL PARTIES AND MULTICULTURALISM

One important factor in the introduction of multiculturalism was the tacit cooperation -- collusion would hardly be too strong a word -- of the major political parties and politicians in agreeing to implement it.  Such political cooperation, which politicians prefer to call bipartisanship, is a very effective method of policy implementation.  "Consensus" about multicultural issues is quite separate and distinct from political agreement about the need for Australia to have a robust immigration policy -- a goal supported by the majority of Australians.

Tacit cooperation in the implementation of the policy of multiculturalism has ignored the wishes of the large number of people who have legitimate concerns about multiculturalism and its implementation.  Their views are seldom expressed in Parliament;  indeed, they are often attacked by politicians and denied legitimacy.  The exclusion from the political process of the views of a large sector of the population will ultimately cast doubt upon the workings of democracy, whose legitimacy and vitality depend a good deal on the representative expression of the diversity of views found in the electorate.

There are, however, some signs that the bipartisan approach might be changing.  In June 1988 the Federal coalition parties indicated that they might revise their unreserved support for multiculturalism because there was a danger that a "separatist" policy was being developed under the guise of multiculturalisrn. ⁽⁶⁰⁾  This may indicate a significant change in policy.  As this chapter has shown, however, multiculturalism is more than just a word whose meaning needs to be made clear -- in practice it involves such disparate things as necessary welfare and post-arrival services on the one hand, and pork-barrelling and vote-buying by politicians on the other.  There is some evidence that the change in Opposition policy might be one in name only, with the underlying support for multiculturalism remaining relatively untouched.  For example, as recently as March 1988, in the House of Representatives, the Liberal Party supported, without any significant reservations, an ALP motion advocating the "Establishment of a Multicultural Society".  The new Greiner government in New South Wales has continued the vote-buying of the previous ALP governments by continuing to increase real expenditure on multicultural programmes.

Having said this, genuine change in the support the major parties have given to multiculturalism as a method of delivering services to sections of the community should be welcomed, if only because it will strengthen the workings of the democratic process in Australia.

---

CONCLUSION

FISCAL ANARCHY

Multiculturalism is a vague concept, with no generally accepted definition and incorporating parts of most of the prominent twentieth century political ideologies.  It is best understood through examination of its ideological components.

Governments do not know how much they are spending on multicultural services.  Traditional accounting practices do not provide adequate information, and the evidence suggests that programme budgeting will not improve the flow of information to the public.  Mechanisms designed to facilitate that flow have also failed.  As a result, all levels of government and the community at large are ignorant of the extent and range of services and expenditure.

Fiscal ignorance is intimately related to additional confusions about different funding categories.  The multicultural lobby has deliberately acted to blur the distinctions between welfare, ethno-specific, and multicultural-type political bribery/vote-buying.  This makes it difficult to assess or criticise multicultural programmes, and allows the multicultural lobby to present reasonable criticism of some features of multiculturalism as an attack on fundamental welfare and post-arrival services.  The only winners in such a state of confusion are the multicultural lobby and pork-barrelling politicians.

It is important, therefore, that the recommendations of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations be implemented.  Multicultural expenditure must be properly classified and ascertained.  This would not only help reduce unnecessary duplication, but would also ensure a better factual basis for public debate.

Ignorance of expenditure also means that no clear rationale exists in the allocation of grants.  Well-established and highly-organised ethnic groups tend to be successful in obtaining grants.  This is highlighted in the distribution of grants to new arrivals detailed in Appendix 3.

Governments are subject to pressure from interest groups, such as the ethnic community and bureaucracy, arguing for increases in multicultural expenditure.  Other community groups argue for cuts.  One outcome of fiscal anarchy is that interest groups from both sides can be appeased if expenditure appears to be cut but is in fact increased, as in the 1986-87 Federal budget.  Fiscal anarchy in the multicultural area can lead to an unplanned political gain for governments.

Moves towards "mainstreaming" multicultural services will not solve the problem.  During 1986-87, many ethnic groups expressed concern about increased mainstreaming (because they feared it would involve deliberate measures to cut expenditure). ⁽⁶¹⁾  But the truth is that expenditure on mainstream programmes is more difficult to trace than ethno-specific services or grants.  Aggregate expenditure could conceivably be increased as a result.

Nor will setting expenditure priorities do much better while the full extent of funding remains unknown.  Adverse economic conditions have increasingly forced governments to recognise the need for fiscal restraint, for instance when the Federal government implemented expenditure priorities in the multicultural area in the 1986-87 Budget. ⁽⁶²⁾  But because governments are not aware of the full extent of funding, not all expenditure components are given a priority.  Cuts are therefore unevenly distributed:  heavy cuts are made to expenditure of which governments are aware, while other expenditure, at a programme and component level, remains unaffected.  The effects of this were clearly seen in the 1986-87 Federal budget where severe cutbacks were made to prominent multicultural programmes, while other hidden expenditure items (notably those described in this paper under the narrow definition of multiculturalism) remained intact or were significantly expanded.

REGAINING CONTROL

If governments are to maintain multiculturalism in something like its present form, what must they do to regain control over multicultural expenditure?  In the face of the need for fiscal restraint, what should their expenditure priorities be?  More particularly, what means should they employ to overcome the inequities and inefficiencies of current funding arrangements?

First, and most obviously, they must institute a comprehensive review of accounting procedures so that accurate fiscal data can be made available.  Second, governments need to establish comprehensive expenditure priorities so that actual expenditure can be linked to the perceived importance of each programme.  At the same time they need to develop and implement clear and consistent criteria for the distribution of grants to ethnic groups.  All such measures will require governments to acknowledge their share of responsibility for the current state of fiscal anarchy -- an unlikely event were it not for the pressing need for fiscal restraint.

Given the links between multiculturalism and immigration, fiscal restraint will also force the government to re-assess its immigration programme -- both in terms of the number of immigrants coming to Australia and the composition of the intake.  Once real expenditure has been ascertained, Australia's immigration policy, as distinct from its refugee programme, must focus on migrants who do not need substantial and sustained services to be provided by the taxpayer.  Such migrants tend to be young, skilled, educated, financially self-sufficient and able to speak English.  The alternative is to modify the policy of multiculturalism so that governments are able to provide services more efficiently and at a reduced cost.  Either way, government policy must minimise the financial costs so that the benefits to Australia can be maximised.

Governments also need to tackle inefficiencies and inequities associated with current funding procedures -- the massive duplication of services on the one hand, and the variable success rates of different groups, which are often unrelated to government criteria of "disadvantage" and "need", on the other.  Often one faction or section of an ethnic group is allocated funding without the knowledge and approval of the rest of that group.

Two remedies suggest themselves if politicians wish to continue the non-welfare funding of ethnic groups.  First, the establishment of a single funding body.  This would limit the problem of duplication.  Second, the application of legal controls on ethnic associations, similar to those affecting the operation of trade unions.  This would ensure that all ethnic associations receiving taxpayers' money were operated in a fair and democratic way, with regular and widely advertised elections being held for all positions within them.  To apply for funding, ethnic leaders should have to prove that they were democratically elected.

Such a move might also weaken the links between multiculturalism and those ideological components of corporatism and socialism which threaten free speech and democracy in Australia.  The regulatory and legal apparatus, such as the Human Rights Commission, which has been established over the last decade to impose multiculturalism on the Australian community, should be dismantled.  Instead, individuals and community groups should be encouraged to use the common law system to protect and extend their civil rights.

ABOLISH MULTICULTURALISM

There is, of course, an alternative to the foregoing "solutions":  abolish multiculturalism in its present form.  This would involve the termination of the vast majority of programmes which come under our narrow definition of multicultural expenditure.  Such a move would:

• Avoid the growing public opposition to multiculturalism, which threatens the continuation of Australia's immigration programme with its associated benefits.
• Severely curtail the inefficient and unnecessary government subsidisation of various cultural and political activities of ethnic leaders, many of whom are unelected.
• Limit the use of ethnic labels -- a bitterly divisive practice more in tune with corporatist ideology than with the values of a liberal democracy.
• Allow all Australians the freedom to follow legal cultural pursuits, without state intervention, manipulation or direction, thus leading to the development of truly independent culture(s).
• Encourage government neutrality in the provision of essential post-arrival and welfare services for migrants and a policy of neither encouraging nor discouraging particular cultural norms and practices which were within the prevailing legal system.
• Encourage respect for Australia's British-derived liberal democratic traditions and system of government.  As the FitzGerald Report puts it, "The commitment (of migrants) to Western liberal values is fundamental". ⁽⁶³⁾

PRIVATISE

A massive welfare apparatus has been established to assist migrants to settle in Australia.  Special services are provided for migrants by almost all government departments, covering almost all areas of government activity.

All ethno-specific programmes should be reviewed.  Those that the review finds unnecessary should be wound up.  Of the rest, welfare services should be contracted-out to either commercial enterprises or ethnic groups and organisations, who could compete with the bureaucracy to provide such welfare functions.  Post-arrival services should be put on a "user pays" basis with a presumption in favour of contracting-out or other privatisation;  a system of vouchers would allow migrants to make use of post-arrival services in accordance with their priorities, not those of the bureaucrats or established ethnic leaders.  Competition for contracts and strict controls on contractors would help ensure quality and efficiency.  The objective of the voucher-subsidised post-arrival services should be to help migrants assimilate into the wider community.

An additional benefit of privatising post-arrival and ethno-specific services is that governments could easily ascertain the total cost of providing them by calculating the total value of vouchers issued.  (The Federal government has begun to privatise some multicultural services.  For example, tenders were called in December 1987 to contract-out the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd, which operates catering/cafeteria, beverage services, migrant centres and flats.)

NO ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION

Governments should cease to use ethnic or racial categories to classify individual Australians and to ration the provision of government services.  Such categorisation reinforces ethnic stereotypes, legitimises the use and application of ethnic labels and increases divisions in the Australian community.  The welfare system should ignore the ethnic or racial background of individuals and target benefits on the sole basis of a person being disadvantaged and/or in genuine need.

ENVOI

Multicultural funding some ten years after the Galbally Report has grown into a significant component of total government outlays involving billions of dollars of public expenditure over the last decade.  Considering Australia's rapidly expanding overseas debt and the precarious economic situation now facing Australia, it is essential that all public expenditures are scrutinised and analysed to ensure that expenditures are being allocated efficiently.  As such, multicultural expenditure deserves the attention of all responsible politicians, bureaucrats and the general public.

---

ADDENDUM

Since the completion of this monograph important developments have occurred in the public policy debate about multiculturalism.  In August 1988 the policy of multiculturalism came under increasing criticism from prominent members of the Federal Government.  Both Dr Richard Klugman, MP, and Mr Graeme Campbell, MP, publicly criticised multiculturalism.  Indeed, Dr Klugman argued that the public funding of multiculturalism had encouraged the activities of "professional ethnics", who isolated migrants and created divisions in the Australian community. ⁽⁶⁴⁾

Conflicting statements by senior members of the Federal Government indicated that a degree of confusion continues to exist within their ranks about the meaning of multiculturalism and the relationship between multiculturalism and immigration.  For example, in September 1988, the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke stated that:

In recent weeks sections of the media have talked of our "multicultural immigration program".  This is an unfortunate confusion.  Multiculturalism is entirely separate to immigration policy.  It plays no part in migrant selection. ⁽⁶⁵⁾

However, on the same day Dr Andrew Theophanous, MP, indicated the Federal Government was only willing to publicly discuss aspects of the immigration programme within the context of "ensuring that Australia's immigration program remains multicultural". ⁽⁶⁶⁾

In September 1988 the Federal Government released a report entitled "Towards a National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia".  This paper claims that the existing system of parliamentary democracy in Australia disadvantages migrants and calls for a radical restructuring of political, legal and bureaucratic institutions in Australian society.  It advocates that "forms of coercion" be used against the media, if the media fails to acknowledge multiculturalism.  Other recommendations include an extension of affirmative action for non-English-speaking background migrants, the passing of a "Multiculturalism Act" and requests that the delivery of services take account of the wishes of migrant communities. ⁽⁶⁷⁾

This report indicates that the debate about multiculturalism may be about to enter a new phase.  Governments have begun to realise that with increasing community opposition to multiculturalism, the policy of multiculturalism will only continue if it can be entrenched in various institutions.  In this regard this approach may involve a direct attack on many of the democratic institutions in Australian society today.

The Federal Government claims that the implementation of recommendations contained in the discussion paper will be made only after an open public debate.  However, in reality many of its key recommendations have already been implemented by the Federal Government.  For example, in August 1988, all Federal Government departments were directed by the Office of Multicultural Affairs to review all government programmes to incorporate the multicultural "Access and Equity Plan".  This plan aims to facilitate involvement by ethnic groups in governmental decision-making processes.

Another important event in the multicultural debate in recent months has been the development by the N.S.W State Government of a package of legislation designed to regulate and inhibit debate about multiculturalism and the related issue of immigration policy.  This package will include stiff fines and jail sentences for individuals who are deemed to have in some way incited ethnic tension. ⁽⁶⁸⁾  This development is significant for a number of reasons.  First, governments nave continued to claim that multiculturalism has been a great success in reducing ethnic tension in Australia.  This proposed legislation, which could best be described as draconian, is proof that multiculturalism has failed to create a harmonious society by reducing ethnic tensions in Australia.  Second, such legislation is a direct threat to freedom of speech.  For the first time in Australia's modern history, this package raises the spectre of people being jailed because of their political beliefs.  Finally, this proposal could be seen as a desperate move on the part of the multicultural lobby -- a flawed attempt to control the policy debate in this area before public opinion forces governments to abandon the policy of multiculturalism.

The tendency of politicians of the major political parties to attempt to attract (or buy) the "ethnic vote" continued in the recent N.S.W. and Victorian State elections.  In its first budget, the new Greiner Government in N.S.W. implemented its pre-election promises of supporting multiculturalism with a massive real increase in funding for ethnic groups.  For example, increased funding included an extra 10.3 per cent funding for the N.S.W. Ethnic Affairs Commission, with grants for ethnic groups increasing by 14 per cent.  Funding for ethnic schools was increased by 25 per cent, an extra $3.5 million was allocated for Family and Community Services grants to ethnic groups and an extra $1.6 million for ethnic housing. ⁽⁶⁹⁾  Prior to the election in Victoria, the Premier, Mr Cain, promised that a number of new multicultural initiatives would be implemented.  These include an increase of 75 per cent in grants to ethnic groups, with an extra $8.7 million for the Ethnic Affairs Commission, an extra $200,000 for ethnic job training programmes and an additional $1.0 million for ethnic language services in rural areas. ⁽⁷⁰⁾

---

ENDNOTES

1.  Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, Multiculturalism for all Australians, page 12.

2.  Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Annual Report 1979-1980, page 5.

3.  Office of Multicultural Affairs, Building a Multicultural Australia.

4.  Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, Immigration a Commitment to Australia, [The FitzGerald Report], page 3.

5.  A. Theophanous, P.D. (H.R.), 17 March 1988, page 1004.

6.  Max Harris, "The Case for Our Cultural Mix", The Weekend Australian, 21-22 November 1987, page 2.

7.  Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Annual Report 1985-86, page 7.

8.  FitzGerald Report, page 13.

9.  Raymond Sestito, The Politics of Multiculturalism.

10.  Frank Galbally, Report of the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services for Migrants, Migrant Services and Programs.

11.  Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Grants Allocated for the Financial Year 1987-88, page 8.

12.  Such a criterion aims to distinguish between expenditure which would have occurred regardless of the introduction of multiculturalism and expenditure which gives preference to ethnic groups within the context of the service being directed at the whole community.  Hence, additional expenditure which is a result of preference towards ethnic groups will be listed, if possible, under the narrow definition.

13.  Out of 210 which were requested to provide data on multicultural expenditure.

14.  Departments in 1986-87 included:  Defence, Territories and Aviation.

15.  Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Pamela Nathan, (ed.), Community and Institutional Care for Aged Migrants in Australia:  Research Findings, page 204.

16.  Interview with Mr Spyker, Melbourne, 25 May 1986.

17.  Report of the Auditor-General (Victoria), 1986, pages 60, 63.

18.  Ibid., page 51.

19.  Ibid., pages 51-66.

20.  Ibid., page 6.

21.  Ibid., page 60.

22.  Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, Report 10, Inter-governmental Aspects of the Provision of Post Arrival Services for Immigrants;  Relationships Reference, pages 44-45.

23.  Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Annual Report 1985-86, pages 78-79.

24.  Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Annual Report 1986, pages 6-7.

25.  Interview with Mr B. Shanahan, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, April 1986.

26.  Interview with Mr P. Spyker, 25 May 1986.

27.  P. Spyker, "Ethnic Groups get $575,000 in Grants", pages 2, 7.

28.  "Arts Plan Launched", Coburg Courier, 47, 17, (30 April 1986), page 3.

29.  Ms S. Clarke, List of Grants.

30.  Australian Council for Inter-government Relations, op. cit., page (xi).

31.  Peter Cole-Adams, "Ethnic Minorities are hardest hit by government myopia", The Age, 27 September 1986, page 11.

32.  Loc. cit.

33.  Edmund Doogue, "Ethnic Council Attacks Government Betrayal", The Age, 4 September 1986, page 29.

34.  Louise Carbines, "The Fading Dream", The Age, (Saturday Extra), 13 December 1986, page 1.

35.  Tom Uren, "Future Brings Challenges in Delivering Human Services", pages 8-9.

36.  FitzGerald Report, page 59.

37.  Sharon Krum, "Ethnic Social Worker Takes Uren to Task on Immigration", The Herald, 11 November 1986, page 10.

38.  FitzGerald Report, Executive Summary;  page 1;  page 3.

39.  See e.g. Suzanne Pekol, "PM defends broad racial mix policies", The Sun, 20 July 1988, page 21.

40.  Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, op. cit., pages 24-25.

41.  Lyle Allan, "Ethnic Politics in the A.L.P.", in P.R. Hay et al (eds), Essays on Victorian Politics, pages 137-143.

42.  Ibid., pages 138-139, 142.

43.  Charles Happell, "A.L.P. loses swelling Asian vote", The Sun, 20 January 1987, page 13.

44.  Ms S. Clarke, List of Grants.

45.  Loc. cit.

46.  Loc. cit.

47.  P. Spyker, News Release, 1985-86, op. cit.

48.  Alex Cummins, "Need:  A Sociological Myth", pages 12-15, 26.

49.  Diney Slamet, "Researchers Find High Stress in Portuguese", The Age, 16 September 1985, page 7.

50.  Geoffrey Blainey, All for Australia, pages 40-43.  The use of racist tags and other ad hominem devices to limit public debate is dealt with at greater length in the next chapter.

51.  Ibid., page 171.

52.  Luis M. Garcia, "Greiner skips racial slur bill, looks for alternative", Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 1988, page 3.

53.  Geoffrey Blainey, op. cit., pages 46-48.

54.  Errol Simper, "Just How Racist are We?", Weekend Australian, 16-17 July 1988, Magazine page 8.

55.  Office of Multicultural Affairs, Focus, page 4.

56.  Wayne Burns, "Bolkus attacks FitzGerald report", Financial Review, 7 June 1988, page 4.

57.  Geoffrey Blainey, op. cit., page 49.

58.  John Dawkins, Higher Education Policy Statement, [White Paper], page 55.

59.  G. Campbell, P.D. (H.R.), 23 November 1987, pages 2833-2834.

60.  Anne Davies and Wayne Burne, "A family affair for the Liberals", Financial Review, 22 June 1988, page 5.

61.  S. Ryan, "Background Briefing", Radio 3AR, Melbourne, ABC Radio, 10.00 a.m. 19 October 1986.

62.  Loc. cit.

63.  FitzGerald Report, page 5.

64.  Suzanne Pekol, "Labor row widens on migrants", Melbourne Sun, 31 August 1988, page 15.

65.  Bob Hawke, "Resisting the rallying call of fear", The Age, 9 September 1988, page 11.

66.  Tania Price, "Migrant debate is leading to violence -- MP", Melbourne Sun, 9 September 1988, page 22.

67.  Robert Reid, "ACMA calls for systematic change for migrants", Financial Review, 16 September 1988, page 3;  and Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs, Towards a National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia:  A Discussion Paper, 1988.

68.  Peter Grimshaw, "Greiner Law to Combat Racists", Daily Telegraph, 29 August 1988, page 1.

69.  Luis Garcia, "Greiner bid for ethnic support", Sydney Morning Herald, 29 August 1988, page 3;  and Luis Garcia, "Now, good news for migrants", Sydney Morning Herald, 21 September, 1988, page 5.

70.  Pamela Bone, "More cash for ethnic affairs", The Age, 1 September 1988, page 20;  and Pamela Bone, "Money cannot erase racist attitudes:  Cain", The Age, 5 September 1988, page 6.

---

APPENDIX 1
Federal Budgets and Multicultural Expenditure

The table on the following page notes changes in the 1986-87 and 1987-88 Federal Budget to programmes or sub-programmes which are specifically multicultural, or have a significant multicultural impact.  Precise comparisons with the data presented in Appendix 7, which forms the basis of this table, are difficult owing to the constantly changing format of the figures in government budget papers.

General Note for Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5 The following symbols are used for certain ethnic groupings in Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5: † China and Hong Kong. ‡ USSR:  not a single ethnic category, however has been listed here as one ethnic grouping. § India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Iran and other. ¶ Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Romania, Switzerland, and other.

Federal Budgets and Multicultural Expenditure

Program Description	($'000) Broad Definition			($'000) Narrow Definition
	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88
Australia Council*	47,026	51,420 (1)	51,803 (17)	47,026	51,420	51,803
SBS*	47,208	47,938 (2)	54,496 (18)	47,208	47,938	54,496
Home and Community Care	48,600	139,000 (3)	176,878 (19)	-	-	-
Finance:  Nursing Homes	46,500	56,100 (4)	71,000 (20)	-	-	-
Hostel Care Subsidies	59,000	70,800 (5)	51,382 (21)	-	-	-
General Assistance to Families	150,177	200,870 (6)	251,861 (22)	-	-	-
Participation and Equity Program	65,078	44,440 (7)	79,009 (23)	-	-	-
Multicultural Education Program*	4,677	- (8)	-	4,677	-	-
Ethnic Schools Program	6,446	6,446 (9)	-	-	-	-
English as a Second Language	62,000	34,300 (10)	50,000 (24)	-	-	-
Job Creation/Employment Assistance	417,539	355,274 (11)	233,198 (25)	-	-	-
CYSS	34,223	37,793 (12)	39,494 (26)	-	-	-
International Year of Peace*	1,967	910 (13)	-	1,967	910	-
Post Arrival and Community	88,948	93,410 (14)	99,213 (27)	-	-	-
Local Govt Development Program	5,000	2,000 (15)	2,000 (28)	-	-	-
Bicentenary*	30,994	73,918 (16)	117,989 (29)	30,994	73,918	117,989
Multicultural Affairs*	-	-	4,479 (30)	-	-	4,479
Total Expenditure	1,115,383	1,214,619	1,282,802	131,872	174,186	228,767
% Change		+8.9	+5.6		+32.1	+31.3
Real % Change (31)		+0.9	-1.4		+24.1	+24.3

* Expenditure which oomes under the narrow definition

---

APPENDIX 2
Summary of Victorian Government Grants to Ethnic Groups

The following data represent a summary of grants to individual ethnic groups.  These data do not represent an attempt to quantify total allocations to ethnic groups by the Victorian Government.  The data represent a sample of funding only.  However, with data from eight Victorian Government departments, covering 380 individual grants, the data do represent a sample of sufficient size to demonstrate funding trends.

Community Employment Program (CEP) grants have been included in this analysis since such funding provided by the Federal Government was administered by the Victorian CEP Secretariat which was operated jointly by the Federal and Victorian State Governments.

* Please note that in the following table the number of CEP projects approved has been deleted so that individual projects cannol be identified, as requested by the CEP Secretariat.  The data in thai column relate to 18 separate grants.

* Please note also that figures in the following table are for 1985-86, except for Education, which are for 1983-84.

Summary of Victorian Government Grants to Ethnic Groups 1985-86 *
Dollars (Number of Grants)

Ethnic Group	Sport & Recreation (32)		Ethnic Affairs (33)		Consumer Affairs (34)		Tourism Community (35)		Commission Services (36)		Labour & CEP (37)*	Arts (38)		Education (39)		Total
Indo-Chinese	$3,880	(5)	$45,500	(16)	$4,960	(2)	-		$33,340	(4)	$96,192	$1,000	(1)	$5,719	(8)	$190,591
Turkish	$8,350	(6)	$44,500	(9)	-		-		$13,084	(2)	$47,978	$12,500	(4)	$11,450	(16)	$137,862
Lebanese	$2,600	(3)	$2,500	(2)	-		-		$9,250	(2)	$105,767	-		$1,100	(1)	$121,217
Yugoslavian	$500	(1)	$31,500	(13)	-		-		$27,900	(1)	-	$1,500	(1)	$9,882	(22)	$71,282
Italian	$4,600	(6)	$46,050	(22)	-		-		$523	(1)	$38,226	$2,000	(1)	$15,821	(9)	$107,220
Polish	$1,900	(1)	$15,000	(6)	-		-		-		$50,683	$1,000	(1)	$5,771	(10)	$74,354
Greek	$500	(1)	$61,250	(24)	-		$7,500	(1)	$30,802	(2)	$218,791	$27,620	(4)	$18,800	(34)	$365,263
Egyptian	$4,000	(4)	$7,000	(4)	-		-		-		-	-		$1,060	(1)	$12,060
Arab	-		$21,000	(3)	-		-		-		-	-		$8,893	(13)	$29,893
Dutch	-		$1,000	(2)	-		-		-		-	-		$330	(1)	$1,330
Chinese †	-		$17,500	(3)	-		-		$2,200	(1)	-		-	$5,656	(9)	$25,356
Austrian	-		$500	(1)	-		-		-		-	-		-		$500
German	-		$4,000	(4)	-		-		-		-	-		$1,472	(5)	$5,472
USSR ‡	-		$2,500	(3)	-		-		-		-	$4,000	(2)	$7,503	(10)	$14,003
Hungarian	-		$10,000	(1)	-		-		-		-	-		$1,907	(3)	$11,907
Other Asian §	-		$8,750	(9)	-		-		-		-	-		$2,307	(4)	$11,057
Icelandic	-		$500	(1)	-		-		-		-	-		-		$500
UK/Irish	-		$2,000	(2)	-		-		-		-	-		-		$2,000
Maltese	-		$8,000	(7)	-		-		-		$32,373	-		$1,432	(2)	$41,805
Maori	-		$3,500	(1)	-		-		-		-	-		-		$3,500
Polynesian	-		$1,000	(1)	-		-		-		-	-		-		$1,000
Portugese	-		$2,000	(1)	-		-		-		-	$2,500	(1)	-		$4,500
S. American	-		$5,050	(5)	-		-		-		$35,618	-		-		$40,668
Spanish	-		$2,500	(2)	-		-		-		-	$6,675	(13)	-		$9,175
E. Timorese	-		-		-		-		-		$35,618	-		-		$35,618
Albanian	-		-		-		-		-		-		-	$492	(1)	$492

* † ‡ § Please see accompanying text (Appendices 1 and 2) for explanation of symbols.

---

APPENDIX 3

Allocation of Victorian Grants (1985-86) *
Compared to Permanent New Arrivals/Country of Birth ⁽⁴⁰⁾

Ethnic Group	Victorian Grants $	New Arrivals Year(s) (Victoria Only)				Average Over 4 Years	Grants/ Head $
		1982-83	1983-84	1984-85	1985-86
Indo-Chinese	190,591	3,968	3,502	3,034	2,912	3,354	56,82
Turkish	137,862	276	440	382	571	417	330.60
Lebanese	121,217	161	325	578	539	400	303.04
Yugoslavian	71,282	481	455	598	804	585	121.85
Italian	107,220	169	169	215	277	208	515.48
Polish	74,354	1,155	536	406	422	630	118.02
Greek	365,263	232	289	296	385	301	1,213.50
Egyptian	12,060	85	128	117	231	140	86.14
Arab	29,893	173	319	323	418	308	97.06
Dutch	1,330	301	131	137	142	178	7.47
Chinese †	25,356	596	997	1,508	1,460	1,140	22.24
Austrian	500	88	39	26	37	48	10.42
German	5,472	858	441	277	265	460	11.90
USSR ‡	14,003	72	59	52	98	70	200.04
Hungarian	11,907	154	85	79	92	103	115.60
Other Asian §	11,057	2,567	2,985	4,191	4,198	3,485	3.17
Icelandic	500	----------Not listed----------				-	-
UK/ Irish	2,000	5,795	2,954	2,445	3,460	3,664	0.55
Maltese	41,805	176	169	137	308	198	211.14
Maori	3,500	----------Not listed----------				-	-
Polynesian	1,000	----------Not listed----------				-	-
Portugese	4,500	307	139	227	270	236	19.07
S.American	40,668	381	472	1^21	1,299	868	46.85
Spanish	9,175	98	62	47	94	75	122.33
E. Timorese	35,618	----------Not listed----------				-	-
Albanian	492	----------Not listed----------				-	-
Other African	Nil	911	868	818	1,404	1,000	-
Other Europe ¶	Nil	1,635	1,166	911	992	1,176	-
North America	Nil	1,296	498	490	578	716	-

* Except for Education, where 1983-84 grants are listed.

For explanation of symbols †, ‡, § and ¶ please see general note in Appendix 1.

---

APPENDIX 4

Victorian Grants Compared to the Size of each Ethnic Group in Victoria, (Grants $ per Head)

Ethnic Group	Grants, $ 1985-86 (41)	Size (42)	Grants, $ per Head
Indo-Chinese	190,591	27,899	6.83
Turkish	137,862	12,454	11.07
Lebanese	121,217	11,286	10.74
Yugoslavian	71,282	59,311	1.20
Italian	107,220	109,204	0.98
Polish	74,354	24,640	3.02
Greek	365,263	67,796	5.39
Egyptian	12,060	11,404	1.06
Arab	29,893	Not listed	-
Dutch	1,330	29,333	0.05
Chinese †	25,356	8,599	2.95
Austrian	500	6,863	0.07
German	5,472	33,662	0.16
USSR ‡	14,003	15,145	0.92
Hungarian	11,907	8,536	1.39
Other Asian § *	46,675	61,257	0.76
Icelandic	500	Not listed	-
UK/Irish	2,000	243,131	0.01
Maltese	41,805	27,020	1.55
Maori	3,500	Not listed	-
Polynesian	1,000	Not listed	-
Portugese	4,500	2,336	1.93
S. American	40,668	5,354	7.60
Spanish	9,175	4,066	2.26
Albanian	492	Not listed	-

For explanation of symbols †, ‡, and §, please see general note in Appendix 1.

* Other Asian and E. Timorese.

---

APPENDIX 5

By cross-referencing ABS data, ethnic groups which tend to live in concentrations can be obtained.  The size of each ethnic group multiplied by 5 per cent can be cross-referenced with municipalities where over 5 per cent of a given ethnic group live.

Concentration of Ethnic Groups in Municipalities in Victoria

Ethnic Group	*5% of Group (43)	Municipalities in which 5% of an Ethnic Group in Victoria Live (44)	Grants $ (45) per Head
Indo-Chinese	630	Fitzroy, Footscray, Melbourne, Nunawading, Oakleigh, Richmond, Springvale, Sunshine, Williamstown	6.83
Turkish/Lebanese/Arab	1,129	Broadmeadows, Brunswick, Coburg, Melbourne	10.91**
Yugoslavian	2,975	Footscray, Keilor, Preston, Springvale, Sunshine, Whittlesea	1.20
Italian	5,772	Broadmeadows, Coburg, Keilor, Preston, Whittlesea	0.98
Polish	1,137	Caulfield, St Kilda, Sunshine	3.02
Greek	3,614	Brunswick, Northcote, Oakleigh, Preston, Whittlesea	5.39
Egyptian	584	Keilor, Waverley	1.06
Dutch	1,536	Knox, Lilydale	0.05
Chinese †	276	Camberwell, Dandenong, Doncaster, Templestowe, Melbourne, Waverley	2.95
Austrian	362	Caulfield	0.07
German	1,717	Nil	0.16
USSR ‡	484	Caulfield, St Kilda, Sunshine	0.92
Hungarian	450	Caulfield, St Kilda, Waverley	1.39
Maltese	1388	Altona, Broadmeadows, Keilor, Sunshine	1.55

* Data from the 1981 Census do not include the children of overseas born who were born in Australia.  These data do not take account of increases in the size of ethnic groups brought about by immigration since 1981.

** Represents total grants for Turkish, Lebanese and Arab groups divided by the total number of persons in these three groups.

For explanation of symbols † and ‡ please see general note in Appendix 1.

---

APPENDIX 6

Permanent Movement:  Settler Arrivals, Region of Birth, Australia ⁽⁴⁶⁾

Source Region	Years
	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987
Africa	5,470	5,060	4,340	3,290	4,210	7,350	9,060
America	4,320	4,480	4,020	5,580	6,340	6,600	7,440
Oceania	17,880	12,050	6,960	8,420	13,340	16,760	19,490
Asia	31,500	27,170	29,700	34,750	34,470	39,770	52,870
Europe	59,530	58,410	33,360	21,070	23,650	32,840	39,420
Total*	118,740	107,170	78,390	73,110	82,000	103,330	128,290

* Components do not necessarily add up because of A.B.S. rounding.

---

APPENDIX 7
EXTENT OF FUNDING 1983-88

Expenditure by all levels of government in the area of multicultur-alism is scattered and difficult to obtain.  Hence, the following data reflect the range of expenditure patterns by department rather than the aggregate expenditure by governments in this area.

Expenditure will cover all available data, usually during the period 1983 to 1986.  Multicultural expenditure will be classified as either mainstream, ethno-specific or grants directly to individuals and groups, as discussed in the Introduction.  All expenditure which could be considered multicultural in the narrow sense of the word is marked by an *.

1. COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT

1.1 Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment

Grants

Under the auspices of the "Australia Council" some $29.912 million was allocated in 1984-85 for artists and artistic activities. ⁽⁴⁷⁾  Funds were then allocated by eight boards, which for 1983-84 allocated to 213 projects some $1.082* million for multicultural arts under the Multicultural Arts Incentive Fund. ⁽⁴⁸⁾

However, the Department's own figures indicate that expenditure on multicultural arts was in fact far greater, with many multicultural projects being funded from outside this fund.  For example, one of the eight boards, the "Community Arts Board", in Victoria allocated $100,138 to multicultural arts through the fund. ⁽⁴⁹⁾  Detailed research of approved grants indicates the real allocation was $28,800 to Local Government multicultural projects and $115,846 for other multicultural arts, ⁽⁵⁰⁾ from a total allocation in Victoria of $523,721. ⁽⁵¹⁾  From this one can conclude that expenditure was far greater than that indicated publicly by the department.

1.2 Attorney-General's Department

Ethno-Specific

For an unspecified period some $7,065 was allocated for printing Freedom of Information literature for non-English-speaking (NES) persons. ⁽⁵²⁾

1.3 Department of Communications

Ethno-Specific

For 1985-86 $43.199* million was allocated for the operation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) ⁽⁵³⁾ with a further $3.0 million* for SBS transmitter construction ⁽⁵⁴⁾ and $2.663 million* for SBS equipment and capital works. ⁽⁵⁵⁾

1.4 Department of Community Services and Social Security

The Department of Social Security was unable to provide any specific data.  Allocations as presented in government budget documents indicated that funding programmes were highly similar in both the Department of Community Services and Social Security.

A. Mainstream

In 1984-85 these Departments allocated some $36.115 million ⁽⁵⁶⁾ and $30.700 million ⁽⁵⁷⁾ respectively for child care services.  Child care services cover a wide range of programmes, many of which have little or no ethnic component.  Institutions providing child care in 1984-85 were eligible for funding support of $16 per head for children under 3 years old and $11 per head for children over 3 years old. ⁽⁵⁸⁾  Ethnic groups operating their own programmes for specific ethnic groups are eligible for such funding.

B. Ethno-Specific

However, in addition to such uniform funding programmes specific allocations exist for ethno-specific services.  From 1978-79 to 1981-82, $750,000 was allocated to employ ethnic health workers. ⁽⁵⁹⁾  For 1985-86, $263,450 was allocated to provide information to disabled ethnic persons. ⁽⁶⁰⁾  The total allocation for the disabled in 1984-85 by the Department was $25.963 million. ⁽⁶¹⁾  For the same year, Community Services allocated $66.149 million for children's services. ⁽⁶²⁾

In 1985-86, $1.28 million was allocated for ethnic children's services, ⁽⁶³⁾ with a further $477,000 for supplementary service grants for special services for ethnic children. ⁽⁶⁴⁾  In addition to such current expenditure on multicultural children's services the allocation is used to employ ethnic child care workers, the extent of which cannot be ascertained.  A further $40,250* was allocated to assist in the "... development of multicultural awareness". ⁽⁶⁵⁾

Substantial funding occurs under the recently expanded "Home and Community Care Program" (HACC) with, e.g., $403,078 being allocated in 1986 to one ethnic senior citizens centre in Melbourne. ⁽⁶⁶⁾

C. Grants

In 1984-85 the Department of Social Security allocated $18,863.831 million for aged accommodation, ⁽⁶⁷⁾ with Community Welfare Services allocating $35,747.344 million for aged services and senior citizens centres. ⁽⁶⁸⁾  In 1985-86, Community Welfare Services allocated $5.6 million to ethnic nursing homes. ⁽⁶⁹⁾

For an unspecified period of time $8.4 million was allocated to ethnic (i.e., ethno-specific) hostels and $3.6 million for ethnic independent living units. ⁽⁷⁰⁾  Further expenditure of an unspecified amount occurs under the residential subsidies programme, the nursing home deficit financing programme and the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Program.  In 1984-85 Community Welfare Services allocated $5.838 million to community welfare agencies. ⁽⁷¹⁾  However, the allocation to multicultural agencies was unavailable.

In the same year Social Security made a special grant to the Greek-Australian Welfare Workers Association of N.S.W., of $95,000.* ⁽⁷²⁾

1.5 Department of Education

A. Mainstream

Ethnic schools are targeted under the category of "disadvantaged" schools, and are eligible for the $1,100 million general recurrent grants programmes in 1985-86. ⁽⁷³⁾  The $36.818 million "disadvantaged schools program" targets ethnic programmes and schools ⁽⁷⁴⁾ and "... almost all programs would have a multicultural perspective ..." ⁽⁷⁴⁾

Under the $24.208 million participation and equity programme, ethnic schools are a target group for funding priority, ⁽⁷⁶⁾ with target priority also under the $6.738 million allocation to computer education. ⁽⁷⁷⁾  All these programmes give funding priority to "disadvantaged" schools, with ethnicity being in the category of the "disadvantaged" component.

B. Ethno-Specific

In 1985 $4.897* million was allocated under the Multicultural Education Program, ⁽⁷⁸⁾ with $71.087 million for the "English as a Second Language Program" for NES migrants. ⁽⁷⁹⁾  This programme was cut back in the 1986-87 Federal budget and then expanded again in the 1987-88 budget (See Appendix 1).  An additional $75,358 was allocated to the "National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multicultural Education", with $297,087 for publicity for the Participation and Equity Program. ⁽⁸⁰⁾

C. Grants

In the same year $6.446 million was allocated to the Ethnic Schools Program on a per capita basis. ⁽⁸¹⁾

1.6 Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

A. Mainstream

The CEP programme was funded by the Commonwealth, State Governments and sponsor organisations.  In 1984-85 the Commonwealth contributed $405,543 million. ⁽⁸²⁾  This programme aimed to provide short term employment opportunities and training for "disadvantaged" unemployed persons.  NES migrants are targeted to receive employment priority. ⁽⁸³⁾  However, the cost of providing such employment priority cannot be determined.  The wage subsidy programme, "Job Start", is designed to make disadvantaged persons more competitive in the labour market.  NES persons are immediately eligible, while English-speaking migrants and other individuals had to be unemployed for over nine months before becoming eligible.  However, the cost of providing immediate eligibility cannot be determined.

B. Ethno-Specific

Substantial CEP funding occurred in this area.  However, since the programme was administered by the Commonwealth and State Governments through CEP Secretariats, which are State based, allocations will be dealt with under the State Government section for Victoria only.  Special needs clients did receive $2.333 million for training in 1984-85 ⁽⁸⁴⁾ and this funding was primarily directed to ethnic groups and persons.  In 1985-86 community based and special clients were allocated $114.805 million to assist such persons obtain employment. ⁽⁸⁵⁾

C. Grants

The CEP programme also provided grants to ethnic organisations.  This will also be dealt with under the State Government section for Victoria only.  Grants are also made by this department directly to ethnic organisations.  However, little data is available on the extent of such funding or its sources.  Data were provided on three grants to voluntary management committees for NES persons in 1986 in Victoria of $27,652. ⁽⁸⁶⁾

1.7 Department of Foreign Affairs

Grants

The full extent of International Year of Peace (IYP) grants to ethnic groups is unavailable.  However, one grant of $15,000* was allocated to "Ethnic Australians for Peace" in 1986. ⁽⁸⁷⁾

1.8 Department of Health

A. Ethno-Specific

In 1984-85 expenditure by the Commonwealth, after subtracting allocations to the States, was $3,273.886 million. ⁽⁸⁸⁾  The department is involved in substantial funding for multiculturalism.  However, disorganisation within the departments in 1986-87 due to internal restructuring meant that only scattered examples of funding were made available.

B. Grants

In 1985-86 $41,580 was allocated for migrant women in industry, for contraception and health education.  The Western Metropolitan Health Region of Sydney received $30,000 in 1984-85 for audiovisual programmes for the ethnic aged, with $26,000 to aid health workers assist with dementia in the ethnic aged.  $3,986 was allocated to assist with psychiatric morbidity in the Vietnamese community. ⁽⁸⁹⁾  For 1984-85, $45,000 was allocated to employ staff to establish self-help groups in the ethnic community. ⁽⁹⁰⁾

1.9 Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

A. Ethno-Specific

With a total departmental budget of $157,689.956 million in 1984-85, ⁽⁹¹⁾ $2.6 million* was allocated to the now disbanded Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (with a further $550,000* in statutory expenditure also directed to it). ⁽⁹²⁾  Trade unions were allocated $270,987 to assist migrants in industry, ⁽⁹³⁾ $200,000 was allocated for migrant projects subsidy payments, $200,000 for interpreter services with $1.895 million for migrant resource centres, ⁽⁹⁴⁾ $1.921 million for language services and $587,068 for migrant centres. ⁽⁹⁵⁾

B. Grants

In 1984-85 the "Grants in Aid" scheme was allocated $4.546 million* for grants to ethnic organisations, trade unions and social workers. ⁽⁹⁶⁾  $560,041* was allocated for voluntary agencies and community groups ⁽⁹⁷⁾ and $85,000* was allocated to the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia. ⁽⁹⁸⁾

1.10 Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism

A. Ethno-Speciftc

Under the "Innovation Recreation Program" 1984-85, $12,410 was allocated for outdoor activities for NES migrants. ⁽⁹⁹⁾  The bicentennial multicultural programme, currently operated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, was allocated $2.5 million*, with a further $900,000 for a bicentennial radio project for the ethnic aged.  $17.4 million* has been allocated under the Local Government Initiative Grants Scheme for bicentennial projects "... which are essentially of a multicultural nature". ⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

B. Grants

Dr J. Jupp has been allocated $1 million to publish an encyclopedia of the ethnic diversity of the Australian people, with $38,000 for a guide to Australia's diverse religions. ⁽¹⁰¹⁾

1.11 Total Commonwealth Expenditure

Essentially, it is not possible to estimate Commonwealth expenditure in this area with accuracy.  The following table indicates total expenditure of a multicultural nature as supplied by the various departments and as a result of research.  Total multicultural expenditure broadly defined is divided by total departmental expenditure, ⁽¹⁰²⁾ giving multicultural expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure.  Expenditure as defined in a narrow sense will be denoted by an *.

Commonwealth Multicultural Expenditure Broad and Narrow Definitions ($'000 and as %)

	Department	Multicultural expenditure ($'000)	Narrow definition of multicultural expenditure ($'000)	Total budget of Department (103) ($'000)	Broad definition of multicultural expenditure as % of total expenditure	Narrow definition of multicultural expenditure as % of total expenditure
1.	Arts, Heritage and Environment	1,082	1,082	94,394	1.2	1.2
2.	Attorney-General's Department	7	-	227,394	-	-
3.	Communications	48,862	48,862	689,201	7.1	7.1
4.	Community Services/Social Security	20,909	135	15,773,580	0.1	-
5.	Education	150,566	4,897	4,026,625	3.7	0.1
6.	Employment and Industrial Relations	28	-	1,133,132	-	-
7.	Foreign Affairs	15	15	1,193,907	-	-
8.	Health	147	-	4,879,529	-	-
9.	Immigration and Ethnic Affairs	12,828	8,540	157,690	8.1	5.4
10.	Sport, Recreation and Tourism	21,850	19,900	98,893	22.1	20.1
	TOTAL	256,294	83,431	28,274,345	-	-

2. VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT

2.1 Department of Sport and Recreation

A. Ethno-Specific

The department allocated $6,000 in 1985-86 to the Shire of Rodney to develop various appropriate programmes for the ethnic aged. ⁽¹⁰⁴⁾  The Fitness and Healthy Lifestyles Unit subsidised representatives from the ethnic community to undertake the "Exercise to Music Training Course".  For the year 1984-85 the department allocated $9.245 million for sport, recreation and leisure. ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾

B. Grants

Grants for low income family recreation camps and holidays for 1985-86 totalled $100,000 with $26,350 going to ethnic groups or for NES persons. ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾  For the same year $626,559 was allocated in grants for local recreation initiatives, of which $19,340 was allocated to ethnic groups. ⁽¹⁰⁷⁾

2.2 Ethnic Affairs Commission

A. Ethno-Specific

For the year 1985-86 the Commission's budget was $3.858 million.* ⁽¹⁰⁸⁾  This allocation included $1.0346 million to improve the access of NES persons to government services, with $258,600 to "... emphasise the situation of migrant women workers, to increase community awareness of migrants and to promote a positive attitude in the community towards migrants. ⁽¹⁰⁹⁾

B. Grants

In 1985-86 the Commission allocated $605,250 in grants to afty ethnic groups. ⁽¹¹⁰⁾

2.3 Victorian Tourism Commission

A. Ethno-Specific

In 1985-86 the Commission allocated $1.0 million in a joint initiative with the Melbourne City Council to develop a Chinatown Precinct. ⁽¹¹¹⁾

B. Grants

In 1985-86 the Commission also allocated $75,000* for the Spoleto Festival and $7,500* for the Australian/Greek Antipodes Festival. ⁽¹¹²⁾

2.4 Department of Community Services

A. Ethno-Specific

The Department's total budget for 1984-85 was $221.779 million. ⁽¹¹³⁾  The Ethnic Access Worker Project, phase two, involved $171,636 expenditure by the department to create jobs specifically for NES persons. ⁽¹¹⁴⁾  An allocation for family support services of $2.129 million was made in 1984-85. ⁽¹¹⁵⁾  Such funds are used to hire family support workers and "care givers" ⁽¹¹⁶⁾ with many "ethnic family support workers" being employed in local government.

B. Grants

In 1984-85 the department allocated $26.615 million in grants ⁽¹¹⁷⁾ with many such grants going to ethnic groups.  For example, in 1985-86, $272,149 was allocated by the department to 23 ethnic groups and 2 municipalities to meet the needs of the ethnic community. ⁽¹¹⁸⁾  However, real expenditure is much greater than indicated by existing data. ⁽¹¹⁹⁾

2.5 Ministry for the Arts

A. Ethno-Specific

In 1984-85 $273,000* was allocated for works and services for the "Footscray Community Arts Centre" which deals specifically with multicultural and ethnic arts. ⁽¹²⁰⁾

B. Grants

The budget for the Ministry in 1985-86 was $85.539 million ⁽¹²¹⁾ with $380,220* being allocated in grants to 51 ethnic groups for multicultural artistic activities. ⁽¹²²⁾  A further $3 million was allocated to the multicultural Spoleto Festival.* ⁽¹²³⁾

2.6 Department of Education

Total expenditure in 1984-85 was $2,335.025 million. ⁽¹²⁴⁾

A. mainstream

Ethnic schools are eligible for standard allocations made to all schools, based on the number of students.  The precise nature of this figure is unavailable.

B. Ethno-Specific

Projects included in the Report of the Auditor General 1984-85 include $584,999 for intensive language centres for migrants. ⁽¹²⁵⁾  In 1985-86 some 133 community language teachers were employed by the Department ⁽¹²⁶⁾ at an annual cost of approximately $25,000 per teacher, ⁽¹²⁷⁾ totalling $3.25 million in one year.  A large number of ethnic teacher aids are employed by the department at a cost of approximately $13,333 per teacher. ⁽¹²⁸⁾  However, the total number of such teachers is unavailable.

C. Grants

In 1984-85, $158,549* was allocated for the development of multicultural teaching materials. ⁽¹²⁹⁾  Ethnic schools received $100,000, ⁽¹³⁰⁾ with $60,000* for materials development.  A further $30,797 was allocated to five ethnic in-service programmes. ⁽¹³¹⁾

2.7 Ministry of Consumer Affairs

A. Ethno-Specific

A number of bilingual staff are employed to deal with the ethnic community, with public relations campaigns run and targeted at the ethnic community in 1984-85. ⁽¹³²⁾  Such services are funded through the Ministry's budget of $3.801 million in 1984-85. ⁽¹³³⁾

B. Grants

In 1985-86, $9,460 was made available specifically to ethnic organisations and NES centres for the provision of data, ⁽¹³⁴⁾ with $13,000 in two grants to ethnic groups and centres to provide advice on residential tenancies. ⁽¹³⁵⁾

2.8 Health Commission

A. Ethno-Specific

For metropolitan Melbourne only, $10,325 million was allocated in 1984-85 for community health projects, ⁽¹³⁶⁾ with funds often used for special projects for the ethnic community.  For the same period $3.707 million was allocated to municipalities for senior citizens centres, ⁽¹³⁷⁾ many of which are now set aside specifically and exclusively for use by ethnic groups.

In 1983-84, $274,386 was allocated for an "Ethnic Health Service" with $617,006 for a central interpreter service and $587,700 for a hospital-based interpreter service.  A further $13,657 was allocated for a mental health interpreter service, with $135,280 for health screening. ⁽¹³⁸⁾

B. Grants

For metropolitan Melbourne in 1984-85, $1.059 million ⁽¹³⁹⁾ was allocated in grants which were used, in part, to employ ethnic health workers.

Total departmental expenditure in 1984-85 was $1,470.155 million. ⁽¹⁴⁰⁾

2.9 Department of Local Government

A. Ethno-Specific

In 1984-85 the department allocated $49,658 for job generation, targeting the disadvantaged, and hence all NES migrants, for employment priority. ⁽¹⁴¹⁾

B. Grants

In 1985-86 the department made a special grant of $44,000* to four municipalities in northern Melbourne for multicultural artistic projects. ⁽¹⁴²⁾

2.10 Department of Labour

In 1984-85 the department, then called the Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs, had a budget of $35.018 million. ⁽¹⁴³⁾

A. Mainstream

"... issues of employment and training of workers of non-English-speaking backgrounds (N.E.S.B.) are addressed as a component of most of the Department's programs". ⁽¹⁴⁴⁾  In 1984-85, $78.904 million was allocated under the CEP in Victoria ⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ with employment preference given to the "disadvantaged", which includes all NES persons. ⁽¹⁴⁶⁾

B. Ethno-Specific

The department provides "Workcare" information in a range of languages with an occupational health and safety information project for the ethnic community. ⁽¹⁴⁷⁾  In allocations to local government $2.591 million was allocated in two wage pause programmes which gave employment preference to members of the ethnic community, and other "disadvantaged" persons. ⁽¹⁴⁸⁾

A large number of CEP funds were allocated to government departments specifically to service the ethnic community.  For example, in 1984-85 $939,716 was allocated to the Department of Community Services for an ethnic access worker project.

"The Department sought to give preference to the employment of women and those persons considered to be most disadvantaged in the labour market -- especially ... migrants with English language difficulties ..." ⁽¹⁴⁹⁾  From 1 July 1985 to 11 April 1986, funds were allocated to government departments for specifically multicultural projects totalling $664,143 over eleven projects. ⁽¹⁵⁰⁾

C. Grants

Large scale allocations directly to ethnic groups occurred under the CEP programme, such as a $50,000 allocation to the Australian Arab Educational Cultural Centre in 1985. ⁽¹⁵¹⁾  From July 1985 to 11 April 1986, grants of $1.140 million* were made for 34 ethnic-multicultural projects.

The Department made a number of grants to community groups, totalling $5.154 million in 1984-85, ⁽¹⁵²⁾ with the total allocation to ethnic groups or for multicultural activities being unknown.  However, a grant of $160,000* was made to a left-wing Greek newspaper, New Directions, in 1985. ⁽¹⁵³⁾

2.11 Total Victorian Expenditure

Actual expenditure derived by research is given below, together with an estimate of total expenditure expressed as given percentages multiplied by programme or a department's expenditure for a one year period.  Expenditure as defined in the narrow sense will be denoted by an *.

Victorian Government Expenditure Broad and Narrow Definitions ($'000 and as %)

	Department	Multicultural expenditure ($'000)	Narrow definition of multicultural expenditure ($'000)	Total budget of Department (154) ($'000)	Broad definition of multicultural expenditure as % of total expenditure	Narrow definition of multicultural expenditure as % of total expenditure
1.	Sport and Recretation	52	-	22,834	0.2	-
2.	Ethnic Affairs	3,858 †	3,858	3,067 †	100.0	100.0
3.	Tourism Commission	1,082	82	18,956	5.7	0.04
4.	Community Services	444	-	221,779	0.02	-
5.	Arts	3,653	653	85,674	4.3	0.8
6.	Education	4,184	220	2,335,025	0.2	-
7.	Consumer Affairs	22	-	3,802	0.6	-
8.	Health	2,687	-	1,470,155	0.2	-
9.	Local Government	44	44	11,110	0.4	0.4
10.	Labour	160	160	35,018	0.5	0.5
11.	C.E.P.	2,743	1,140	78,904	3.5	1.4
	TOTAL	18,929	6,157	4,286,324	-	-

† Figures vary as they represent different financial years.

3. VICTORIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The total budget in 1984-85 for the two hundred and ten municipal-it!* * in Victoria was $1,708 million. ⁽¹⁵⁵⁾  Such funds were allocated to a wide range of economic and social programmes.  Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data indicate that $15.387 million was allocated in 1984-85 to "other" welfare of which a major component is welfare services for migrants. ⁽¹⁵⁶⁾

To clarify such expenditure on multiculturalism, the two hundred iind ten municipalities were surveyed in 1986 and asked to provide data on municipal expenditure on multiculturalism. ⁽¹⁵⁷⁾  A total of une hundred and forty-eight municipalities responded.  Twenty-two municipalities indicated that funding occurred and were able to provide data.  A further ten municipalities indicated that such expenditure occurred, but were unable to provide any data.  One hundred and thirteen municipalities indicated that no expenditure in this area occurred, with three other municipalities only acknowledging a request for data.  Of the one hundred and forty-eight responses, twenty-four city municipalities and eight rural municipalities indicated that substantial funding occurred in 1984-85.

A. Mainstream

As with other levels of government, mainstream expenditure data were difficult to obtain.  For example, the Coburg City Council allocated $162,562 on a multicultural senior citizens centre. ⁽¹⁵⁸⁾  This centre, open to all aged persons, does however cater especially for NES persons.  Such expenditure, especially for inner Melbourne municipalities, is common in the areas of health, welfare, recreation, education and community amenities.  Data on mainstream expenditure do not exist in local government accounting records at the present time in a format which is useful for financial analysis of multicultural expenditure.

B. Ethno-Specific

The survey revealed the following data.  The purchase of library material for NES persons was undertaken by seven municipalities, totalling some $92,326.  However, $51,686 of this figure came from one municipality only.  Hence, it would be reasonable to assume that this figure is in fact much larger.  Indeed, a large number of municipalities, particularly in the rural areas of the state, indicated unspecified expenditure did exist in this area.

Ethnic elderly citizens centres and social facilities were allocated $168,398 by seven municipalities.

A total of nine municipalities allocated $315,914 to employ staff to help the ethnic community in a range of social, recreational and information areas.  A further $209,743 was allocated in unclassified type areas such as providing information in the many "community languages" which are recognised and increasing the awareness of the ethnic community of their legal rights, etc.

C. Grants

A further $73,140* was allocated in the form of grants, directly to ethnic groups.  Grants included $12,000 for the "Malta Gozo Band", $2,000 for the Turkish Association of Springvale and $12,000 for Brunswick Turkish and Arabic Migrant Women's groups.

In the same period, $151,638* was allocated to multicultural artistic activities and cultural festivals.  Examples include $18,000 for an ethnic crafts display in the City of Knox, $11,938 for the "Palington Street Fiesta" in West Geelong and $2,800 for an "August Moon Festival".

In total, some $1,011,159 was allocated in the ethno-specific and grants area, with $224,778 coming under the narrow definition of multicultural expenditure.  But this figure indicates the range rather than the true extent of funding.  This is because of the difficulty most Councils had in estimating expenditure in this area and also because a number of Councils, particularly in metropolitan Melbourne, which are heavily involved in multicultural activities, did not see fit to respond to the survey.

Results of Municipal Survey -- Expenditure Classification $

Municipality	Library	Elderly centres etc	Employ staff	Unclassified	Grants to ethnic groups*	Grants to festivals*	Totals	Narrow definition total expenditure	Total municipal expenditure ($'000) (159)
Oakleigh	120	42,800	41,700	-	-	21,100	105,720	21,100	20,480
Port Melbourne	-	-	-	25,000	-	-	25,000	-	6,426
Prahran	-	4,795	78,942	-	-	-	83,737	-	20,845
Heidelberg	-	-	2,500	-	-	-	2,500	-	22,258
Knox	-	-	-	-	-	18,000	18,000	18,000	34,240
St Kilda	-	-	-	10,000	2,500	-	12,500	2,500	18,927
Broadmeadows	-	-	-	3,840	18,740	-	22,580	18,740	25,530
Coburg	51,686	5,631	37,759	-	-	-	95,076	-	16,186
Preston	15,000	-	19,523	-	-	2,000	36,523	2,000	24,478
Hawthorn	920	-	800	-	-	-	1,720	-	12,337
Geelong West	-	-	-	-	500	11,938	12,438	12,438	3,666
Altona	-	14,000	-	3,500	-	2,000	19,500	2,000	11,807
Springvale	-	-	-	79,125	5,100	-	84,225	5,100	20,882
Brunswick	10,000	8,500	62,990	22,700	18,000	9,500	131,690	27,500	17,095
Melbourne	-	-	71,200	65,578	24,400	22,000	183,178	46,400	95,839
Shepparton	-	-	-	-	3,000	57,950	60,950	60,950	9,930
Morwell	-	6,672	-	-	400	2,950	10,022	3,350	12,524
Rodney	-	86,000	-	-	-	-	86,000	-	6,447
Daylesford	-	-	-	-	500	4,200	4,700	4,700	2,973
Werribee	-	-	500	-	-	-	500	-	22,770
Waverley	2,600	-	-	-	-	-	2,600	-	28,068
Mildura	12,000	-	-	-	-	-	12,000	-	10,499
TOTAL	92,326	168,398	315,914	209,743	73,140	151,638	1,011,159	224,778	444,207

* Expenditure which comes under the narrow definition.

4. REGIONAL COMMISSIONS

This new "arm" of government was discussed briefly in the Introduction of this monograph.  Regional Commissions are a rapidly expanding form of government which cover geographic regions and, taken together, are often referred to as the fourth tier of government.  In Victoria over eleven such Commissions existed in 1986.  Some of these bodies, such as the Geelong Regional Commission or the La Trobe Regional Commission, have been established by an Act of the Victorian Parliament, while others, such as the Northern Region Commission or the Outer Eastern Municipalities Association, have been established by groups of local Councils.

Regional Commissions usually obtain funding from the three existing levels of government and not directly from the community.  They are concerned with regional economic and, to a lesser extent, regional social development.  Research and co-ordination of data banks are the main functions performed by Commissions and such research is often related to multiculturalism.  For example, the La Trobe Regional Commission has "... provided some assistance in kind to community organisations and in particular, to the La Trobe Valley Ethnic Advisory Council". ⁽¹⁶⁰⁾

Hence, Commissions are also involved in funding multicultural-ism by providing facilities, information and by obtaining funds to undertake further research into the many "needs" of the ethnic community.

---

NOTES TO THE APPENDICES

1.  Minister for Finance, Portfolio Program Estimates 1986-87, 1986-87 Budget Paper No.6, AGPS, Canberra, page 37.

2.  Ibid., page 88.

3.  Robyn Dixon, "Boost for Home Care to Switch Aged from Nursing Homes", The Age, 20 August 1986, page 45.

4.  Loc. cit. (1984-86 estimate derived from data included in article.)

5.  Loc. cit. (1984-86 estimate derived from data included in article.)

6.  Minister for Finance, op. cit., page 92.

7.  Ibid., page 102.

8.  P. Cole-Adams, "Ethnic Minorities are hardest hit by government myopia", The Age, 19 September 1986, page 11.

9.  Loc. cit.

10.  Laurie Schwab, "Teachers to fight migrant cuts with campaign in Hawke's seat", The Age, 19 September 1986, page 19.

11.  Minister for Finance, 1986-87, op. cit., page 110.

12.  Ibid., page 115.

13.  Ibid., page 140.

14.  Ibid., page 155.  (Includes change to the Institute of Multicultural Affairs).

15.  Ibid., page 175.

16.  Ibid., page 200.

17.  Minister for Finance, Portfolio Program Estimates, 1987-88, Budget Paper No.3, AGPS, Canberra, page 73.

18.  Ibid., page 374.

19.  Ibid., pages 153-4.

20.  Ibid., page 152.

21.  Ibid., pages 152-3.

22.  Ibid., pages 149-50.

23.  Ibid., page 208.

24.  Senator Sheil, P.D. (S.), 23 November 1987, page 2200.

25.  Minister for Finance, 1987-88, op. cit, page 201.

26.  Loc. cit.

27.  Ibid., page 253.

28.  Ibid., page 255.

29.  Ibid., page 326.

30.  Ibid., page 332.

31.  "Economic Forecasts and Assumptions", Financial Review, (Budget Supplement), 20 August, 1986, page 10.

32.  Mr B. Downey, List of Grants.

33.  P. Spyker, "Ethnic Groups get $575,000 in Grants".

34.  Mr Gibbons, List of Grants.

35.  Mr B. Crathan, List of Grants.

36.  Mr Jenkinson, List of Grants.

37.  Ms Ryan, List of Grants.

38.  Ms S. Clarke, List of Grants.

39.  Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, op. cit., pages 29-37.

40.  Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Information Paper No.9, April 1987.

41.  From Appendix 2.  (For 1985-86 except for the education components, which were 1983-84.)

42.  Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census of Population and Housing, page 25.

43.  Loc. cit. (Data multiplied by 5 per cent.)

44.  Loc. cit.

45.  From Appendix 2.

46.  Australian Bureau of Statistics, Permanent Movement, Overseas Arrivals and Departures Australia:  1987, pages 7-8.

47.  Minister for Finance, Financial Statements Prepared by the Minister for Finance:  For the Year Ended 30 June 1985, AGPS, Canberra, 1985, page 36.

48.  Australia Council, List of Multicultural Grants 1984-85.

49.  Loc. cit.

50.  Australia Council, Annual Report 1983-84, pages 118-128.

51.  Loc. cit.  This figure was obtained by adding all grants to ethnic groups, grants from the fund and grants to projects which were multicultural in nature.  Some groups were contacted directly to ascertain whether the funding was used specifically for multicultural activities.

52.  Information and Public Relations Section, Attorney General's Department, Letter, Canberra, April, 1986.

53.  Department of Communications, Estimates of Expenditure 1985-86:  Explanatory Notes, page 108.

54.  Ibid., page 161.

55.  Ibid., page 151.

56.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 64.

57.  Ibid., page 190.

58.  Department of Community Services, File No. 86/5p/0201, Department of Community Services, Melbourne, June 1986.

59.  Pamela Nathan, op. cit., pages 242-245.

60.  Department of Community Services, File No. 0595A, Department of Community Services, Melbourne, June 1986.

61.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 63.

62.  Loc. cit.

63.  Department of Community Services, File No. 86/5p/0201, op. cit.

64.  Loc. cit.

65.  Don Grimes, "Ethnic Child Care Services to Get a Boost", News Release, Canberra, February 1986.

66.  "Council Coffers Get $537,000 Boost", Coburg Courier, 47, 27, (9 July 1986), page 1.

67.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 190.

68.  Ibid., pages 63-64.

69.  D. Grimes, "Capital Funds for Ethnic Nursing Home Accommodation", News Release.  Canberra, 9 May 1986.

70.  Pamela Nathan, op. cit., page 204.

71.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 63.

72.  Ibid., page 191.

73.  Commonwealth Department of Education, Commonwealth Programs for Schools, page 5.

74.  Ibid., page 23.

75.  Interview, Catholic Education Office, Mr P. Dawson, 25 July 1986.

76.  Commonwealth Department of Education, op. cit., pages 17-20.

77.  Ibid., page 41.

78.  Ibid., page 31.

79.  Ibid., page 27.

80.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 82.

81.  Commonwealth Department of Education, op. cit., page 33.

82.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 95.

83.  Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Community Employment Program, page 1.

84.  Minister for Finance, op. cit., page 95.

85.  P. Walsh, Portfolio Program Statements 1985-86, AGPS, Canberra, 1985, pages 33-34.

86.  Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Letter, Victorian Region, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, 1986.

87.  "Fireworks over Migrant Grants" Coburg Courier, 47, 26, (1 July 1986), page 1.

88.  Minister for Finance, op. cit., pages 111-113.

89.  Federal Department of Health, Letter, Victorian Region, Department of Health, June 1986.

90.  Loc. cit.

91.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 122.

92.  Ibid., page 123.

93.  Loc. cit.

94.  Ibid., pages 122-123.

95.  Loc. cit.

96.  National Population Council, Issues for 1986 the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services, The Grant in Aid Scheme, pages 8, 29, 33.

97.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 122.

98.  Ibid., page 123

99.  Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Annual Report 1984-85, page 147.

100.  A.B.A., Letter GSB608002, Australian Bicentennial Authority, Canberra, March 1986.

101.  Loc. cit.

102.  Total expenditure represents the total allocation to programmes which have a strong multicultural component or the total budgets of departments.

103.  Minister for Finance, 1985, op. cit., page 9.

104.  Mr B. Downey, List of Grants.

105.  Treasurer's Statement, Finance 1984-85:  The Treasurer's Statement for the Year Ended 30 June 1985, and the Report of the Auditor General, Government Printer, Melbourne, 1985, page 168.

106.  Mr B. Downey, op. cit.

107.  Loc. cit.

108.  R.A. Jolly, Appropriation (1985-86 No.1) 1985-86;  Budget Paper No.3.  Melbourne, Victorian Government, page 132.

109.  R.A. Jolly, Receipts and Program Budget Expenditures 1985-86.  Budget Paper No.4, Melbourne, Victorian Government, pages 116-119.

110.  P. Spyker, "Spyker Announces Ethnic Affairs Grants", page 2.

111.  Mr B. Crathan, op. cit.

112.  Loc. cit.

113.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., page 54.

114.  Community Services Victoria, Ethnic Access Worker Project:  Information Manual, pages 10-11.

115.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., page 51.

116.  Local Government Department Information Service, State Government Payments and Subsidies to or for Government Authorities in Victoria, pages 10-11.

117.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., pages 49-51.

118.  Mr Jenkinson, op. cit.

119.  Loc. cit.

120.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., pages 37-38.

121.  Ibid., pages 20-21.

122.  Ms S. Clarke, op. cit.

123.  Loc. cit.

124.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., page 72.

125.  Ibid., page 71.

126.  Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, (M.A.C.M.M.E.), 1983-84 Annual Report, page 13.

127.  Based on assumption that average cost is $25,000 for community language teacher and $13,333 for ethnic teacher aids. This is a rough estimate only.

128.  Loc. cit.

129.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., page 71.

130.  M.A.C.M.M.E., op. cit, page 11.

131.  Loc. cit.

132.  Mr Gibbons, op. cit.

133.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., page 64.

134.  Mr Gibbons, op. cit.

135.  Loc. cit.

136.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., pages 94-96.

137.  Ibid., pages 88-96.

138.  Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations, op. cit., page 69.

139.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., pages 94-97.

140.  Ibid., page 97.

141.  Local Government Department Information Service, op. cit., pages 10-11.

142.  "Arts Plan Launched", Coburg Courier, 47, 17, (30 April 1986), page 3.

143.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., page 81.

144.  Ms Ryan, op. cit.

145.  Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, op. cit., page 131.

146.  Ibid., page 1.  (CEP was financed primarily by the Commonwealth, but administered by State Government areas rather than nationally.)

147.  Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs, Annual Report 1984-85.

148.  Local Government Department Information Service, op. cit., pages 17-18.

149.  Department of Community Services, Annual Report 1984-85, page 75.

150.  Ms Ryan, op. cit.  Note:  This includes CEP grants only between 30 July 1985 to 11 April 1986.

151.  "$50,000 grant to help Lebanese", Coburg Courier, 46, 15, (17 April 1985), page 17.

152.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit., pages 73-77.

153.  Bob Browning, "The Rise of P.A.G.U.T.S. (Political Advocacy Groups Utilising Taxes)", page 14.

154.  Treasurer's Statement, op. cit, pages 20-21.

155.  Australian Bureau of Statistics, Local Government Finance:  Victoria, 1984-85, page 1.

156.  Ibid., pages 35, 51.

157.  All municipalities were written to and requested to provide data on expenditure on multicultural activities for 1984-85.

158.  "Council Coffers Get $537,000 Boost", Coburg Courier, 47, 3, (9 July 1986), page 1.

159.  Australian Bureau of Statistics, op. cit. pages 20-24.

160.  Victorian Director of Corporate Services, Letter, Traralgon, La Trobe Regional Commission, May 1986.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS

Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, "Report 10, Inter-governmental Aspects of the Provision of Post-Arrival Services for Immigrants", Inter-Governmental Focus, 1, (May 1986), pages 1-4.

Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, Report 10, Inter-Governmental Aspects of the Provision of Post-Arrival Services for Immigrants:  Summary, A.C.I.R., Hobart, 1986.

Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, Report 10, Inter-governmental Aspects of the Provision of Post-Arrival Services for Immigrants:  Relationships Reference, A.C.I.R., Hobart, 1986.

Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs, Towards a National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia:  A Discussion Paper, AGPS, Canberra, 1988.

Australia Council, Annual Report 1983-84, Parliamentary Paper No.153, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Australia Council, Ethnic Arts Directory, Australia Council, Sydney, 1984, third edition.

Australia Council, List of Multicultural Grants 1984-85, Australia Council, Canberra, 1986.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1981 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Summary Data;  Condensed Format 2, Cat. No. 2455.0, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1981.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Summary Data;  Condensed Format 2, Cat. No. 2455.0, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1986.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Local Government Finance:  Victoria 1984-85, Cat. No. 5501.2, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1986.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Melbourne Statistical Division, Population of Local Government Areas by Country of Birth, Census 30 June 1981, Cat. No. 81.203, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1981.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Permanent Movement, Overseas Arrivals and Departures Australia:  1987, Cat. No. 3404.0, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1988.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Permanent Movement, Settlers Arriving, State or Territory of Intended Residence and Country of Birth 1982, Cat. No. 3404.0, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1983.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Permanent Movement, Settlers Arriving, State or Territory of Intended Residence and Country of Birth 1983, Cat. No. 3404.0, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1984.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Permanent Movement, Settlers Arriving, State or Territory of Intended Residence and Country of Birth 1984, Cat. No. 3404.0, A.B.S., Melbourne, 1985.

Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Report, AGPS, Canberra, 1982.

Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, Multiculturalism for All Australians:  Our Developing Nationhood, AGPS, Canberra, 1982.

Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, Australia as a Multicultural Society, AGPS, Canberra, 1978.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Annual Report 1984-85, AGPS, Melbourne, 1985.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Annual Report 1985-86, AGPS, Melbourne, 1986.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Evaluation of Post-Arrival Programs and Services, AGPS, Melbourne, 1982.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, First Annual Report 1979-80, AGPS, Melbourne, 1982.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Pamela Nathan, (ed.), Community and Institutional Care for Aged Migrants in Australia:  Research Findings, AGPS, Melbourne, 1986.

Cahill, Desmond, Review of the Commonwealth Multicultural Education Program, Phillip Institute of Technology, Canberra, 1984, Volume 1.

Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, Report to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, AGPS, Canberra, 1983, Volumes 1 and 2.

Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, Immigration a Commitment to Australia, [The FitzGerald Report], AGPS, Canberra, 1988.

Commonwealth Department of Education, Commonwealth Programs for Schools:  Administrative Guidelines for 1986, AGPS, Canberra, January 1986.

Commonwealth Department of Education, Report for the Period 1 January 1984 to 30 June 1985, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Commonwealth Schools Commission, Commonwealth Standards for Australian Schools, Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, 1984.

Commonwealth Schools Commission, Financial Assistance Granted to Each State, Parliamentary Paper No. 196, Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, March 1985.

Commonwealth Schools Commission, Funding Policies for Australian Schools, Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, 1984.

Commonwealth Schools Commission, Quality and Equality:  Commonwealth Specific Purpose Programs for Australian Schools, Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, 1985.

Commonwealth Schools Commission, Quality and Equality:  Commonwealth Specific Purpose Programs for Australian Schools, (Summary), Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, November 1985.

Commonwealth Schools Commission, Recommendations for 1986, Parliamentary Paper No. 214, Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, April 1985.

Community Services Victoria, Ethnic Access Worker Project:  Information Manual, Department of Community Services, Melbourne, 1986.

Dawkins, J.S., Higher Education Policy Statement, [White Paper], AGPS, Canberra, July 1988.

Dawkins, J.S., Higher Education:  A Policy Discussion Paper, [Green Paper], AGPS, Canberra, December 1987.

Dellat, Hass B. and Fermanis, Suzanne, The Multicultural Arts Directory, Victorian Ministry for the Arts, Melbourne, 1985.

Department of Communications, Estimates of Expenditure 1985-86:  Explanatory Notes, AGPS, Melbourne, 1985.

Department of Community Services Victoria, Annual Report 1984-85, Department of Community Services, Melbourne, 1985.

Department of Community Services, List of Grants 1955-1984, Aged or Disabled Persons Accommodation Program, Department of Community Services, Melbourne, 1986.

Department of Community Services, Nursing Homes and Hostels Review, AGPS, Canberra, 1986.

Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs, Victoria, Annual Report, 1984-85, Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs, Melbourne, 1985.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Community Employment Program:  The Second Year:  1984-85, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Directory of Migrant Information Material 1985, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Migrant Services and Programs, Appendixes, AGPS, Canberra, 1978.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Review of Activities to June 1985, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, 1984 Digest of Local Government Statistics, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, Local Government and the 1985-86 Budget, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, Commonwealth Assistance for Local Projects 1985-86, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Department of Premier and Cabinet, Interim Report of the Research Group on the Funding of Non-government Agencies:  Executive Summary, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Melbourne, November 1985.

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Annual Report 1984-85, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Recreation and Fitness Projects:  Funded by the Federal Government, 1983-84 and 1984-85, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Ethnic Television Review Panel, Discussion Paper:  An Ethnic Television Service for Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1979.

Ethnic Television Review Panel, Second Report:  Structure and Funding of the Interim Multicultural/Multilingual Television Service, AGPS, Canberra, December 1979.

Galbally, Frank E., Report of the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services for Migrants, Migrant Services and Programs, AGPS, Canberra, 1978.

Geddes, Margaret, Arts Funding Guide for Community Organisations in Victoria, Victorian Arts Council, Melbourne, 1985.

Hopkins, H.J, Program Budgeting in Victoria, Australian Society of Accountants (Queensland Division) Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration (Queensland Branch), Joint Seminar on Program Budgeting, November 1984.

Humphry, R.G., Report of the Auditor-General, Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne, 1986.

Local Government Department Information Service, State Government Payments and Subsidies to or for Government Authorities in Victoria, Local Government Department Information Service, Melbourne, 1986.

Local Government Department, Annual Report 1984-85, Local Government Department, Melbourne, 1985.

Mackellar, M.J.R., Issues in Immigration, AGPS, Canberra, 1980.

Macphee, Ian, Immigration Policies in Action, AGPS, Canberra, 1982.

McCredie, Dando, A Guide to Planning Community Arts Projects for the Australian Bi-centenary, Community Arts Resource Centre, Victorian Ministry for the Arts, Melbourne, 1985.

Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, 1983-84 Annual Report, M.A.C.M.M.E., Melbourne, 1985.

Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, "Newsletter of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education", M.A.C.M.M.E., 2, 3, (November 1985), Melbourne.

Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, Report to the Minister:  The Place of Languages Other than English in Victorian Schools, State Board of Education, Melbourne, 1985.

Ministerial Policy Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, Non-English Speaking Background Girls, and Education:  An Annotated Bibliography, M.A.C.M.M.E., Melbourne, 1984.

Ministerial Policy Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, Non-English Speaking Parents and the School:  Annotated Bibliography, Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne, 1984.

Mr B. Crathan, List of Grants, Victorian Tourism Commission, Melbourne, 1986.

Mr B. Downey, List of Grants, Department of Sport and Recreation, Melbourne, May 1986.

Mr Gibbons, List of Grants, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Melbourne, 6 June 1986.

Mr Jenkinson, List of Grants, Department of Community Services, Melbourne, 9 May 1986.

Ms Ryan, List of Grants, C.E.P. Secretariat, Melbourne, April 1986.

Ms S. Clarke, List of Grants, Ministry for the Arts, Melbourne, 11 April 1986.

National Population Council, Issues for 1986:  the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services, The Grant in Aid Scheme, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Office of Local Government, Local Government Development Program:  1984-85 Projects, AGPS, Canberra, 1985.

Office of Multicultural Affairs, Building a Multicultural Australia, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 1987.

Office of Multicultural Affairs, Focus, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, March 1988.

Spyker, P., "Ethnic Groups Get $575,000 in Grants", News Release:  Minister of Ethnic Affairs, Melbourne, February 1985.

Spyker, P., "Spyker Announces Ethnic Affairs Grants", News Release:  Minister of Ethnic Affairs, Melbourne, 23 February 1986.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Annual Report 1986, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, 1986.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Funding Guide, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, 1984.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Grants Allocated for the Financial Year 1987-88, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, 1988.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Guide to Ethnic Media in Victoria, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, 1984.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Information Paper No. 9:  Settler Arrivals to Victoria 1985-86, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, April 1987.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Planning and Delivery of Government Information Programs for Ethnic Communities, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, 1985.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, The Relationship of Ethno-Specific Services to Government and General Community Services in Victoria, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne.

Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission Funding Guide, Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, Melbourne, 1984.

Victorian Ministry for the Arts, Victorian Arts, Report 1984-85, 12th Annual Report, Victorian Ministry for the Arts, Melbourne, 1985.

B. BOOKS AND JOURNALS

Allan, Lyle, "Ethnic Politics in the A.L.P." in Hay, P.R., Halligan, J., Warhurst, J. and Costar, B. (eds), Essays on Victorian Politics, Warnambool Institute Press, Warnambool, 1985, pp.133-143.

Australian Labour Party, Ethnic Affairs:  the next 4 years, [Victorian A.L.P. 1985 Election Platform], Melbourne A.L.P,, Melbourne, 1985.

Australian Labour Party, Victorian A.L.P. Policy, A.L.P., Melbourne, 1986, Chapter 10.

Bertelli, L., The 1980-81 Budget and the Ethnic Communities, Chomi Reprints R 399, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1980.

Blainey, Geoffrey, "Mr Hawke's Other Bicentennial Scandal", Review, 39, 3, (Summer 1985), pages 15-17.

Blainey, Geoffrey, All for Australia, Methuen, North Ryde, 1984.

Bowman, Margaret and Halligan, Joh, "Local Government:  Continuity and Change" in Hay, P.R. et al., (eds), Essays on Victorian Politics, Warnambool Institute Press, Warnambool, 1985, pages 91-103.

Browning, Bob, "The Rise of the P.A.G.U.T.S. (Political Advocacy Groups Utilising Taxes)", Review, 40, 2, (Winter 1986), pages 10-15.

Chipman, Lauchlan, "The Menace of Multiculturalism", Quadrant, 24, 10, (October 1980), pages 3-6.

Cooray, L.J.M., "Multiculturalism in Australia:  Who needs it?", Quadrant, 30, 4, (April 1986), pages 27-29.

Cooray, M., "Threat to Human Rights in Australia", Review, 40, 20, (Winter 1986), pages 56-59.

Cummins, Alex, "'Need':  A Sociological Myth", Economic Affairs, 6, 1, (October-November 1985).

Cutts, Llois, "Federal Finances and Local Government", Local Government Administration, 20, 13, (December 1983), pages 23-27.

Federation of Ethnic Communities, "Councils of Australia. Resolutions of the 1984 First National Congress of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia", Ethnic Spotlight 6, 1985.

Federation of Ethnic Communities, "Councils of Australia", Ethnic Spotlight 4, Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, 1984.

Federation of Ethnic Communities, "Councils of Australia", Ethnic Spotlight 2, Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, 1984.

Grassby, A.J., Australian Ethnic Affairs Policy for the 80s, Multicultural Australia Papers 13, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1981.

Jupp, James, (ed.), Ethnic Politics in Australia, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1984.

Jupp, James, "Multiculturalism:  Friends and Enemies, Patrons and Clients", The Australian Quarterly, 55, 2, (Winter, 1983), pages 149-159.

Kringas, P. and Lewins, Frank, Why Ethnic Schools?, Chomi Reprints 388, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1980.

Local Government Focus Special Feature, "Ethnic Access to Services", Local Government Focus, 2, 7, (August 1986), pages 1-5.

Municipal Association of Victoria, Analysis of the Commonwealth Budget 1986-87, Municipal Association of Victoria, Melbourne, 1986.

Power, J.M. and Low, N.P., "Hamer's Policy Seedlings:  Inquiries and Ministries", in Hay, P.R. et al. (eds), Essays on Victorian Politics, Warnambool, Warnambool Institute Press, 1985, pages 49-64.

Raysmith, Hayden, Government Funding of Migrant Programs in Voluntary Agencies, Multicultural Australia Papers 11, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1981.

Rodapoulos, L., Proceeding of the National Grant-in-aid Director's Conference, National Grant-In-Aid Directors Conference, Melbourne, Clearing House on Migration Issues, 1981.

Rodapoulos, Loula, Implementing Multi-Cultural Strategies in Welfare:  An Appraisal of the Greek Experience, Chomi Reprints 427, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1981.

Sestito, Raymond, The Politics of Multiculturalism, The Centre for Independent Studies, St. Leonards, 1982.

Smolicz, J.J. and Bullivant B.M., Multiculturalism:  Yes, No, and Maybe, Chomi Reprints 402, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1980.

Strathan, Candy, (ed.), "Machinery of Government", Addresses to A.L.P. State Conference October 1982, Labour Resource Centre Pty Ltd, Carlton South, 1982, pages 1-65.

Uren, Tom, "Challenge and Change to the Third Sphere of Government", Local Government Administration 20, 16, (September 1984), pages 44-45.

Uren, Tom, "Future brings Challenges in Delivering Human Services -- says Minister, Mr Uren", Local Government Management, 24, 4, (December 1986), pages 8-9.

Victorian Consultative Committee on Social Development, Access to Funding:  Collected Papers of the V.C.C.S.D. Seminar, Multicultural Australia Papers 21, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1983.

Victorian Consultative Committee on Social Development, Multiculturalism and its Implications for Service Delivery in Australian Society, Multicultural Australia Papers 18, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Melbourne, 1982.

Victorian Liberal Party, The New Victorian Liberal Party Policy:  Multicultural Affairs, Liberal Party, Melbourne, 1984.