The Hindu Business Line : It’s multi-racial, Down Under

The attacks on Indian students in Australia highlight a lack of economic opportunities, and the absence of networks or social institutions where Australian society and Indian students may interact.

Vidya S. Sharma

Some time ago, I was invited to speak to the Rotarians in Chennai on business opportunities in Australia. After my talk, the first question I was asked was, “Why does Australia pursue a white Australia policy?”

It is truly remarkable that a nation born out of “white Australia policy” has developed into a modern multi-racial society peacefully. There have been no “Brixton or Paris riots” or assassinations of civil rights leaders.

In 2008, there were over half-a-million Australian residents who were born in China or India (Chart 1). The 2006 Census found that 16.2 per cent of Australians spoke a language other than English in their homes: Chinese (14.8 per cent), Italian (10.1 per cent), Greek (8 per cent), Arabic (7.7 per cent), Vietnamese (6.2 per cent) and Hindi (2.2 per cent). About 25.7 per cent of all Australian residents were born overseas. The majority of the new Australian residents from India and China are in their early twenties and thirties (Chart 2). These are mainly international students.

I wish to explore three issues here. First, why have the majority of attacks on Indian students taken place in Melbourne? Does it mean that Melbourne is more racist than other Australian cities? Second, generally the Indian media has painted these attacks as racial in character. Therefore, it seems worth exploring to what extent popular conception of Australia as a racist society stands scrutiny. Third, have the Federal and Victorian Governments taken sufficient steps to markedly improve the situation?

A reality check

When a new ethnic group immigrated to Australia in seemingly large numbers (as is the case with the Indians presently) it has generally generated some hostility, especially from those who fear the new immigrants would take away their jobs. These people have common characteristics: socially disadvantaged background, semi-literate and xenophobic.

However, the Vietnamese immigrants were more easily accepted in Australia. This was because Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser set up or strengthened structures such as migrant resources centres, free English education classes, SBS Television and radio stations (that broadcast non-English programmes). He also added the function of multi-cultural affairs to the Department of Immigration to reflect modern Australia.

In the late 1980s, Australia’s immigration policy changed from family reunion to skills migration. Consequently, the funding to such structures was reduced. Prime Minister John Howard did not see any need for such structures as he believed multi-culturalism diluted “the Australian identity”. Since Fraser, only two other politicians have tackled racism boldly: ex-PM Keating and ex-Victorian Premier Kennett.

All others, irrespective of their political affiliations, including all current incumbents, have been almost frightened to face xenophobia and racism. They have preferred to treat such incidents as any other crime: which they are, but they also reflect ugly social phenomena.

Why in Melbourne?

The dismantling of structures set up by Fraser explains the rise of racism in Australia. Second, Melbourne culture is more conservative. Third, Melbourne ethnic communities are considered as relatively less integrated. Fourth, Indian students have made little effort to be part of the community here. Fifth, Melbourne attracts more Indian students as it is cheaper to live here. It also is a more liveable city in terms of public transport to fringe suburbs and other amenities.

Sixth, racism is not the sole motivator in most cases as has been depicted in the Indian media. Some other factors in the mix are: alcohol, xenophobia, the need to fund drug habits, fear of losing one’s identity, etc. Consequently, it has been easier politically to term these incidents as ‘crimes’ instead of as manifestation of social challenge(s) confronting Australia.

If treated as a criminal matter, the incidents do not require a policy response. They become police matters.

Has the Penny Dropped?

Both at Federal and State levels, the problem is being seen either as a problem of product quality control (asking all the private education providers to re-register) or a public-relations problem best articulated by the Victoria Premier, Mr John Brumby, “Some of the events of the last few months have damaged our brand and the Australian brand in India.”

However, these attacks represent civilisational issues facing contemporary Australia, i.e., what steps are needed, what structures need to be established to ensure harmony between new and old Australians so that neither would feel threatened. These attacks highlight a lack of economic opportunities, a lack of network or social institutions where Australian society and Indian students may interact, and corruption in education export.

These attacks also demonstrate the failure of State governments to adequately fund vocational education (about 60 per cent of international students). If this happens, then government-owned TAFE (Technical and Further Education) institutions would become leading education exporters, thus largely inhibiting the proliferation of disreputable private education providers.

(The author, based in Melbourne, specialises in organising joint ventures between Australian and Asian companies.)