StatsCan – Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

Another informative study, highlighting common patterns and flagging divergence with respect to source countries. As I had noted earlier in work with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, the prohibition of dual citizenship in source countries does not affect naturalization rates, whereas comparative growth rates do, as countries with more rapid growth lower the “value proposition” of Canadian citizenship:

…In both countries, the declines in immigrant citizenship rates were most pronounced among those from countries with substantial living-standard gains (e.g., China, with 82% growth in GDP per capita PPP, and India, Vietnam and the Philippines, with 39% to 56% growth) or enhanced passport strength (e.g., Colombia and China). These reductions contrast with minimal changes from nations showing slower growth (e.g., source countries with less than 15% GDPgains). Notably, source-country economic expansion (China’s 82% vs. Canada’s 6% and Australia’s 10%) appears strongly correlated with falling naturalization rates, suggesting that improved economic conditions in the source country reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in the destination country.

Dual citizenship recognition had minimal influence on naturalization patterns. Source countries with similar living standards but differing dual citizenship policies showed similar citizenship rates. Declines in citizenship rates occurred across major origin countries despite stable dual citizenship policies during the study period. This consistency means that dual citizenship regulations in source countries were not a driver for the reduced naturalization rates in both Australia and Canada. Furthermore, some countries have made acquiring foreign citizenship less prohibitive, even while dual citizenship is not allowed. For instance, China has introduced reforms granting residency and certain rights to skilled overseas Chinese people since 2010. Likewise, India’s Overseas Citizenship of India program, established in 2005, offers eligible people of Indian origin various socioeconomic benefits, residency rights and long-term visas (Tan & Liu, 2024).

While source-country developments influenced citizenship trends, divergent declines between Australia and Canada suggest additional factors. Chinese, Colombian, Vietnamese and Pakistani immigrants showed steeper drops in Australia, while Filipinos, South Koreans, Britons, Americans, Sri Lankans, Malaysians, Iranians and Iraqis declined more in Canada. Notably, living standards changed very little in South Africa, Iran and Iraq, yet South African immigrants experienced about 12 percentage point decreases in both nations, whereas the rates for Iranian and Iraqi immigrants declined significantly in Canada but remained stable in Australia. 

These differences between the two countries in naturalization trends among immigrants from the same source nation indicate that other explanations are at play. These might include differences between the two countries in the modification of their policies and regulations regarding citizenship acquisition, differences in the characteristics of immigrants from the same source nation, and other unknown factors. 

In summary, this study analyzed changes in citizenship rates among recent immigrants from major source nations to Australia and Canada. By focusing on immigrants who have met residency requirements for naturalization, the analysis examined observed and adjusted citizenship rates—controlling for sociodemographic characteristics—across 14 major source-country groups. The findings revealed marked declines in citizenship uptake among recent immigrants in both countries over the 2011-to-2021 period. These declines were most pronounced among immigrants from countries that have seen significant improvements in living standards or passport strength, particularly China, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Colombia. Dual citizenship policies in the source country appear to have little effect on naturalization trends. The magnitude of declines varied by country of destination and source country. 

This study demonstrates that immigrant naturalization patterns must be understood transnationally. Improvements in source-country economies, expanded global mobility options and enhanced passport values collectively reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in destination countries. The observed declines suggest a partial decoupling of permanent residency from citizenship. Notably, while destination-country integration and citizenship policies can clearly affect naturalization patterns, they appear to be increasingly contingent on immigrants’ evolving motivations and source-country conditions. These findings challenge conventional integration models and underscore how dynamic global hierarchies and transnational migrant strategies can shape migration outcomes—in this case, the naturalization rate.

Source: Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

Thousands in Australia march against immigration, government condemns rally

Of note. Hopefully will not be replicated in Canada:

Thousands of Australians joined anti-immigration rallies across the country on Sunday that the centre-left government condemned, saying they sought to spread hate and were linked to neo-Nazis.

March for Australia rallies against immigration were held in Sydney and other state capitals and regional centres, according to the group’s website.

“Mass migration has torn at the bonds that held our communities together,” the website says. The group posted on X on Saturday that the rallies aimed to do “what the mainstream politicians never have the courage to do: demand an end to mass immigration”.

The group also says it is concerned about culture, wages, traffic, housing and water supply, environmental destruction, infrastructure, hospitals, crime and loss of community.

Australia – where one in two people is either born overseas or has a parent born overseas – has been grappling with a rise in right-wing extremism, including protests by neo-Nazis.

“We absolutely condemn the March for Australia rally that’s going on today. It is not about increasing social harmony,” Murray Watt, a senior minister in the Labor government, told Sky News television, when asked about the rally in Sydney, the country’s most-populous city.

“We don’t support rallies like this that are about spreading hate and that are about dividing our community,” Watt said, asserting they were “organised and promoted” by neo-Nazi groups.

March for Australia organisers did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the neo-Nazi claims.

Laws banning the Nazi salute and the display or sale of symbols associated with terror groups came into effect in Australia this year in response to a string of antisemitic attacks on synagogues, buildings and cars since the beginning of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023.

COUNTER-PROTESTERS EXPRESS ‘DISGUST, ANGER’

Some 5,000 to 8,000 people, many draped in Australian flags, had assembled for the Sydney rally, the Australian Broadcasting Corp reported. It was held near the course of the Sydney Marathon, where 35,000 runners pounded the streets on Sunday, finishing at the city’s Opera House.

Also nearby, a counter-rally by the Refugee Action Coalition, a community activist organisation, took place.

“Our event shows the depth of disgust and anger about the far-right agenda of March For Australia,” a coalition spokesperson said in a statement. Organisers said hundreds attended that event.

Police said hundreds of officers were deployed across Sydney in an operation that ended “with no significant incidents”.

A large March for Australia rally was held in central Melbourne, the capital of Victoria state, according to aerial footage from the ABC, which reported that riot officers used pepper spray on demonstrators. Victoria Police did not confirm the report but said it would provide details on the protest later on Sunday.

Bob Katter, the leader of a small populist party, attended a March for Australia rally in Queensland, a party spokesperson said, three days after the veteran lawmaker threatened a reporter for mentioning Katter’s Lebanese heritage at a press conference when the topic of his attendance at a March for Australia event was being discussed.

Source: Thousands in Australia march against immigration, government condemns rally

Sarwal: Australian multiculturalism isn’t failing; radical ideologies threaten our shared values

Similar commentary could apply to Canada:

In response to Nick Cater’s recent Sky News op-ed on the Bankstown Hospital anti-Semitic outbursts, I feel compelled to address a common misconception about Australia’s multicultural experiment. While Cater rightfully condemns the vile actions of the nurses involved, his assertion that the entire Australian multicultural model is failing misses a crucial point.

Cater’s article highlights the deeply disturbing incident in which two nurses were caught on video making anti-Semitic remarks. It is, without question, a chilling example of hate and prejudice that has no place in any society, least of all in a country like Australia that prides itself on tolerance and diversity. However, Cater’s conclusion that this event signals the failure of Australia’s multiculturalism oversimplifies a far more complex issue.

While these nurses’ actions were reprehensible, the underlying issue is not the multicultural model itself, but rather the harmful ideologies that certain migrant groups may bring with them. Cater himself notes that “the demoralising conclusion from this incident is that hatred of Israelis is unremarkable in Bankstown and in the suburbs where Nadir and Abu Lebdeh live.” This, however, is not indicative of the failure of Australian multiculturalism as a whole. Instead, it exposes the reality that there are pockets of isolation where radical and extremist views take hold. These communities, driven by political, social, or religious ideologies, often fail to fully engage with mainstream Australian values. This does not mean that multiculturalism is inherently flawed—it simply highlights that certain groups may resist assimilation or integration into the broader social and cultural fabric of the nation.

Cater’s article points to the existence of “Ethnoburgs”—areas where ethnic communities live in relative isolation from the rest of society and, as he suggests, may be more susceptible to radical ideas. These communities may struggle with the integration process for various reasons, whether due to language barriers, limited economic opportunities, or entrenched cultural beliefs. It is important to recognise that such challenges are not exclusive to any one ethnic or religious group. Every migrant community faces its own struggles in adjusting to life in a new country. However, the focus should not solely be on these challenges but also on the solutions that encourage better integration and shared understanding.

The key issue at hand is not multiculturalism itself but the failure of some individuals or groups to embrace the fundamental values of Australian society—values that prioritise equality, respect, and non-violence. As Cater rightly points out, “Australian citizenship is not just a flag of convenience. It is an obligation to put our shared identity as Australians first.” The challenge is ensuring that all migrants, regardless of background, understand that the key to a successful Australian society lies in mutual respect, coexistence, and commitment to the shared ideals that unite us as citizens.

It’s crucial to remember that multiculturalism has been an overall success in Australia. The vast majority of migrants who arrive here do so with a genuine desire to build better lives for themselves and their families while embracing the core values of this nation.

Multiculturalism in Australia thrives because the majority of migrants and their descendants understand that diversity does not mean division but the enrichment of society. We should not allow the actions of a few individuals or communities who have failed to adapt to sour our perception of the broader multicultural project.

Moreover, it’s important to acknowledge that not all migrant groups face the same struggles. As Cater mentions, “Pakistani migrants are not at war with Indians, and Serbian and Croatians no longer fight proxy wars in the grandstands at soccer games.” Similarly, it is wrong to generalise or scapegoat entire communities based on the actions of a few. Just as past waves of migrants—such as the Irish and Italians—integrated into Australian society and contributed to the country’s cultural fabric, so too will those from more recent migrant communities, provided we offer them the right support and opportunities.

In fact, Indian-Australians are one of the fastest-growing and most vibrant communities in Australia, contributing significantly to the country’s cultural, economic, and social landscape. They are among the highest taxpayers in Australia, particularly within the skilled migration sectors, as many in the community work in high-paying professions such as healthcare, information technology, engineering, and finance. Despite occasional challenges such as racial discrimination, Indian-Australians continue to thrive, making significant contributions to Australian society.

That said, when extreme ideologies take root within any community, the responsibility falls on both the government and society to address them head-on. This means confronting hate speech, educating about Australian values, and ensuring that radical ideologies are not allowed to fester unchecked. The incident at Bankstown should serve as a wake-up call not to abandon multiculturalism, but to double down on our efforts to create a more inclusive society where extremism has no place.

Australia’s multicultural identity has always been about more than just tolerance; it’s about actively embracing diversity and promoting inclusion. But for that to work, all members of our society must be willing to accept the underlying principles that make Australia the fair and just country it is. These principles demand mutual respect, a commitment to social harmony, and the understanding that, while our differences make us unique, we all share the responsibility to uphold the values that unite us.

The real threat to multiculturalism lies not in the model itself, but in the failure of some individuals and groups to integrate into it. It is not the diversity of cultures that threatens our social fabric, but the intolerance and extremism that, when left unchecked, undermine the very foundation of the Australian way of life.

Ultimately, the way forward is not to abandon the ideals of multiculturalism but to ensure that those who come to our shores are willing to adopt and uphold the values that make Australia the inclusive, tolerant, and prosperous society that it is. It’s time to confront these challenges directly, rather than dismissing the entire multicultural experiment based on the actions of a few.

Amit Sarwal is Melbourne-based academic, writer, translator, and former radio broadcaster. He is the Founding Convenor of Australia-India Interdisciplinary Research Network (AIIRN), Co-founder of the Australia Today news network and Founder of Kula Press.

Source: Australian multiculturalism isn’t failing; radical ideologies threaten our shared values

Australia launches special task force on antisemitism

Of note:

Australia on Monday launched an anti-semitism task force following an arson attack at a synagogue in Melbourne last week which police say was likely terrorism. 

The fire early on Friday at the Adass Israel synagogue injured one and caused widespread damage, and has strained relations between Australia and its ally Israel.

It is the third anti-semitic attack in Australia this year, following the vandalism of a Jewish MP’s office in Melbourne in June and anti-semitic graffiti daubed on cars in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, an area with a high Jewish population, last month.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) task force will be known as Abalight.”Special Operation Abalight will be an agile and experienced squad of counter-terrorism investigators who will focus on threats, violence, and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians,” the head of the AFP Reece Kershaw told a news conference.”

In essence, they will be a flying squad to deploy nationally to incidents.”

Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the attacks on the Jewish community were concerning.

“Antisemitism is a major threat, and antisemitism has been on the rise,” he said.

Earlier on Monday, Australian police transferred the investigation into Friday’s blaze to a joint counter-terrorism unit, saying the blaze was likely a terrorist attack. State and federal police along with the country’s domestic intelligence service will work in tandem to identify three suspects wanted in connection with the attack, Shane Patton, Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, told a news conference.”We have the best resources, best-skilled investigators, people who are expert in this field, and we will throw everything we can at this investigation to resolve it,” he said.

Police initially said on Friday it did not believe the fire met the threshold of a terror attack. Designating it a suspected terror incident gives investigators additional resources and powers that include preventative detention, Patton said.Police have also stepped up patrols of Jewish areas in Melbourne in order to reassure the community there, he added. (Reuters)

Source: Australia launches special task force on antisemitism

Calls for changes to Australia’s citizenship test after Thai migrant fails five times

Don’t have comparable Canadian data on test fail rates but did do this long term analysis on the citizenship processing times and overall approval rates, highlighting contrast between previous conservative government’s tightening and then relaxing operational aspects. What citizenship applications tell us about policy implementation. One of the issues in Discover Canada and the related test questions was the overly high language level but current numbers suggest that is less of an issue. Strongly believe that the test must be written in an official language but case can be made for study guide to be available in other languages:

…More people failing test since 2020

In 2020 the government updated the test for the first time in a decade — introducing five questions on Australian values such as freedom of speech and equal opportunity.

To pass the test, applicants must answer the five values questions correctly.

Since then, more applicants have been failing at the first attempt.

Data from the Home Affairs Department indicated in the year prior to the changes, around 94 per cent of applicants passed on their first attempt.

In the 2023–24 calendar year that had dropped to around 84 per cent, equating to more than 25,000 people failing at the first try.

Ultimately, 96 per cent of 2023–24 applicants passed, but those who made multiple attempts sat the test an average of four extra times.

Advocates, including the Refugee Council of Australia, argue the values questions, because of their more complex wording, are unfair to people without formal education, particularly the elderly and women.

In August, an independent review of the state of Australian multiculturalism recommended the federal government consider offering the test in languages other than English.

But in 2020, the then-Coalition government said ensuring new citizens had a strong grasp of English would make it easier for them to get good jobs.

A spokesperson for Assistant Citizenship Minister Julian Hill said the current government had no plans to make the test available in languages other than English.

“People can seek special assistance with the test, and it is regularly reviewed to ensure the language and questions are clear, fair, and accord with the legal standard of basic English,” the spokesperson said.

Source: Calls for changes to Australia’s citizenship test after Thai migrant fails five times

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s call to ‘cherish’ multiculturalism as Gaza refugee fight drags on

Some interesting numbers from Australia, highlighting greater intake than Canada (as of July 24, 434 approved, 189 in Canada:). But there has been little political debate in Canada over those coming from Gaza unlike in Australia:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has continued to back ASIO and Australia’s security measures as a political bunfight over refugees fleeing to Australia from ravaged Gaza continues.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton this week called for a ban on refugees from Gaza, claiming adequate vetting was not taking place.

“Peter Dutton plays politics at every opportunity,” Albanese said, during a visit to the Ferragosto festival of Italian culture in Sydney’s inner west today.

“It’s important that we value our multiculturalism, we celebrate it, and we cherish it.”

Australia has granted more than 2600 visas to Palestinians, and rejected a further 4600, since Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, according to Senate Estimates from May.

Of those, only about 1300 have arrived and remain in Australia.

And with the Gaza borders closed, it’s unlikely many more will turn up in the near future.

The opposition is calling for checks on those refugees already here, along with compulsory face to face interviews with future applicants.

“We’re prepared to show that compassion but we want to make sure when they come here they can continue to enjoy that lifestyle we have,” Nationals leader David Littleproud said.

No specific offences or crimes committed by Gaza refugees have been mentioned.

But ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess’s declaration that “rhetorical” support for Hamas would not be an automatic bar to entry to Australia has been seized upon as a political talking point.

Source: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s call to ‘cherish’ multiculturalism as Gaza refugee fight drags on

Australia: Modernised Multicultural Grants Program

Announcement by the Albanese government. Interesting, that Australia provides core funding support as well as support for non-religious training for faith leaders:

The Australian Government commits to supporting a stronger multicultural Australia through the Modernised Multicultural Grants Program.

This program will:

  • give more consistent and long term funding to multicultural organisations,
  • foster more certainty and sustainability for multicultural organisations, and
  • support longer-term initiatives and lasting results.

The funding will support organisations to:

  • hold local events,
  • celebrate festivals,
  • build and deliver support programs,
  • improve amenities,
  • build facilities, and
  • strengthen their ability to serve both members of their own community and the broader society.

This program will give funding through four separate streams:

  • Infrastructure for Multicultural Organisations
  • Multicultural Grass Roots Initiatives
  • Multicultural Peak Body Funding
  • Faith Leaders Training

These opportunities are currently under development. For more information on when these grant rounds open, including how to apply for these opportunities, see the Australian Government’s grants information system, GrantConnect.

You can subscribe to the Community Grants Hub mailing list to get notifications of new grant opportunities as they become available.

Infrastructure for Multicultural Organisations

This opportunity will fund grants of up to $20 million over 3 years from 2025-26. You can apply for this round in October 2024.

Successful projects will include construction, upgrade or extension of infrastructure that provides demonstrated benefits to multicultural communities. For example:

  • community hubs and centres
  • museums, libraries and art spaces
  • indoor and outdoor amenities, like food preparation areas, dining spaces, bathrooms, play equipment and barbecue facilities
  • meeting and conference facilities
  • stages, auditoriums and spaces to encourage performing arts
  • spaces for sporting and physical activities.

To be eligible to apply, your project must be investment ready (or ‘shovel ready’), meaning construction can begin within 12 weeks of executing your grant agreement. This means you will have:

  • regulatory and/or development approvals,
  • evidence of experience in delivering similar sized projects or have engaged a third party with relevant experience,
  • evidence of your co-contribution from another source (for example state government funding) or your cash contribution to the project,
  • a detailed project proposal, including project plans (designs), timelines and procurement process,
  • detailed budget including quotes and cost benefit analysis,
  • detailed risk management plan, and
  • evidence that you either own the land/infrastructure being built/upgraded upon, or that you have the landowner’s permission to use the land/infrastructure.

Multicultural Grassroots Initiatives

Organisations will be able to apply for grants of up to $100,000 over 2 years from 2024-25 for:

  • Multicultural celebrations, such as festivals and events,
  • Multicultural amenities, such as building upgrades, furnishings or equipment, or
  • Intercultural connections, such as intercultural sports programs or art projects.

You can apply for this round in November 2024.

Multicultural Peak Body Funding

Multicultural peak bodies and community organisations will be able to apply for 4 years of funding of up to $400,000 per year. This will allow them to continue to play a pivotal role in strengthening Australia’s multicultural capacity.

You can apply for this round in December 2024.

Faith Leaders Training

This grant opportunity will provide up to $500,000 per year, over 4 years,  from 2024-25 for organisations to develop and deliver non religious training courses to faith leaders and those in pastoral roles in faith organisations.​

You can apply for this round in December 2024.

Source: Modernised Multicultural Grants Program

ICYMI – Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

As in Canada:

Australians have been rightly proud of our largely harmonious and tolerant society, rooted in our unique model of multiculturalism.

This model is centred on celebrating cultural diversity, maintaining shared core values – such as the rule of law, mutual respect and tolerance – and a framework of laws aimed at ensuring good intercommunal relations and deterring and marginalising racial vilification, hate speech and incitement to violence.

Yet, in the past year, the notion that the different peoples and faiths that comprise modern Australia can co-exist in mutual harmony has been repeatedly challenged.

There is no denying we are experiencing an extended period of intercommunal tension, hatred, incitement and violence, which represents a direct challenge to ongoing Australian multiculturalism and our stable, cohesive democratic society.

Since Hamas’ barbaric attack against Israel on October 7 and the subsequent war, a day has seldom passed without examples of hate speech and incitement to violence and worse against Jews and non-Jews who dare express support for Israel or fail to condemn Israel for defending itself against Hamas.

These appalling incidents have included defacing war memorials and tagging Jewish day schools, synagogues and communal buildings with offensive graffiti and banners. The wider community has not been immune from these attacks either.

Protesters have glorified Hamas – a banned terrorist group – and chanted hateful slogans including: “There is only one solution, intifada revolution”.

Some Muslim leaders have seemingly supported Hamas’ massacre as legitimate resistance against Israel. One Australian Islamic scholar said there were no “innocent victims” on October 7; another Muslim cleric sermonised recently that Jews are “descendants of pigs and monkeys”; another sermonised on December 22 in Sydney that, “The most important characteristic of the Jews is that they are bloodthirsty … another is betrayal and treachery,” adding Jews are “monsters” who “love to shed blood”.

Antisemitic tropes – such as allegations that “Jewish power” works to undermine our institutions and national interests – have migrated from the fringes into the mainstream with claims from members of parliament about the supposed tentacles of the Jewish lobby and the alleged veto of Jewish politicians over the government’s Middle East policies.

Unfortunately, a vocal minority have seized on these incidents as proof that multiculturalism is not only a failed experiment but the catalyst for many of our problems.

Yes, we should be concerned, but we need to focus on the right targets.

Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for “anything goes”, that whatever your background or values – be they embedded in extremism, violence, terrorism, racism or whatever – they’ll fit into diverse Australia.

Rather, our multicultural, democratic model has succeeded only by emphasising the need to accept and practise one’s responsibilities and not just exercise one’s rights. It relies on a non-negotiable commitment to certain shared core values and responsibilities, including parliamentary democracy and the rule of law; freedom of speech and religion; the equality of the sexes; and mutual respect and tolerance.

If the values and principles embedded in your ethnicity, religious or national background violate those core multicultural, democratic values, they are unacceptable in multicultural, democratic Australia.

These are the principles underpinning the fabric of Australian multiculturalism, which so much of the current discord, hatred and antisemitism profoundly challenges and undermines.

The fundamental issue is the failure of our leaders to emphatically stress these core values and forcefully condemn behaviour breaching them, and the relative inaction of legal authorities in enforcing the law.

During the infamous October 9 anti-Israel demonstration at the Sydney Opera House, which included chants of “f— the Jews” and “Where’s the Jews?”, NSW Police failed to act against protesters.

Instead, Jews and pro-Israel supporters were told to avoid Sydney’s CBD. Law enforcement’s practice of managing conflict by shifting responsibility from would-be perpetrators to the targets of hate has been on repeat since October 7.

On November 10, when anti-Israel demonstrators descended on Melbourne’s Jewish community, the police evacuated congregants from a nearby synagogue service.

Continuing the pattern, visiting families of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas were further traumatised when anti-Israel agitators took over their hotel lobby. Instead of dispersing those disturbing the peace, the police moved the Israeli guests to a nearby police station for their protection.

Police investigations into some of the sermons cited above concluded that none appeared to “meet the threshold of any criminal offence” covered by our laws against racial vilification and incitement.

Something is clearly amiss. At a time of escalating tensions, it’s crucial our leaders and law enforcement take a strong stand against hateful and threatening behaviour.

No one would argue that from time to time policies and legislation don’t need tweaking to meet today’s challenges and circumstances, and indeed reviews are under way, including on ways “for government and the community to work together to support a cohesive multicultural society” with the federal government just releasing the report of the multicultural framework review and its response.

Yet, we need more rigour and vigour in enunciating and implementing both our policy and legal frameworks to prevent further damage to Australian democracy and our multiculturalism upon which the harmony and security of our society crucially depend.

Colin Rubenstein is the executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and was a member of the initial Council for Multicultural Australia (2000-06).

Source: Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

Australia’s citizenship test should be provided in other languages, landmark review recommends

Government right not to accept this recommendation. Language central to integration and allowing immigrants to take the test in other languages weakens citizenship and integration:
The 200-page Multicultural Framework Review has been welcomed by advocates who are calling on all levels of government to update and improve what has been described as “fragmented” policy.
The review, which took more than a year to finalise, called on the federal government to action 29 recommendations, including 10 immediately.
They were made following consultation across Australia with more than 1,400 individuals and 750 organisations.
“Australia stands at a unique crossroads where we have a great opportunity to craft an inclusive future where not only do we celebrate our differences, but also our shared values to help form our national identity,” said Dr Bulent Hass Dellal, director of the Australian Multicultural Foundation and Chair of the review panel.
A key recommendation was a review of the citizenship test procedures, including incorporating languages other than English.
Managing Director of Migration Affairs Taraneh Arianfar said language requirements are an added burden on top of an already lengthy procedure.
“Apart from a very small category that are exempted from the exam, the test, the rest are required to do the test in English, which is very challenging for some groups, especially minority and refugees categories and some family visa-holders,” she said.
Another recommendation was the establishment of a Multicultural Affairs Commission and Commissioner, as well as a standalone Department of Multicultural Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship, with a dedicated minister.
A spokesperson from the Department of Home Affairs said the government “will draw from and embed the key features of the review … across all Commonwealth agencies and activities, now and into the future.”
The citizenship test plays an integral role in ensuring new citizens have “a basic knowledge of the English language and an understanding of Australia”, the spokesperson said, adding that a basic knowledge of English supports integration and participation in the community.
“The citizenship test will continue to be offered only in English as this reflects the role our national language plays in unifying the community and ensuring those who become citizens can fully participate in Australian society,” the spokesperson said.
“The department continuously monitors the operation of the test in order to consider any potential adjustments and support that may be needed.”

The ‘dangerous potential’ for one factor to create more unrest in Australian communities

The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) welcomed the recommendation to review the citizenship test.
“In too many cases, we see families divided between those who are able to pass the citizenship and those who cannot,” RCOA chief executive officer Paul Power said.
“Instead of penalising those with low English proficiency, we should strive to encourage all individuals to become citizens and contribute to Australian society. We urge the government to implement the Panel’s recommendation for a comprehensive review of the citizenship test.”
Despite committing $100 million to support multiculturalism, the government is yet to accept any specific recommendations, Professor of Sociology Andrew Jakubowicz pointed out.
“A lot of the recommendations of the review relate to parts of government doing new things, and there’s no framework until the multicultural commission is established, if it is established, of ensuring that those sorts of things happen.”
Among the further recommendations are to develop a national plan to celebrate Australia’s cultural diversity.
A full list of the recommendations can be seen HERE.

Source: Australia’s citizenship test should be provided in other languages, landmark review recommends

Australia: A major multiculturalism review has recommended bold reforms. How far is the government prepared to go?

Jakabowicz on the review:

A year ago, the government instigated an independent review of the national multicultural framework.

As more than half of Australia’s population is either born overseas or has one parent who was, this policy is important. It underpins how multiculturalism works in almost every part of life. It aims to ensure equity and inclusion for people from minority groups, and attempts to whittle away at structural racism.

Now the review report has been released. This comes against a backdrop of growing antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia, as well as the fallout from the failed Voice to Parliament referendum and the vicious racism many communities experienced during the COVID crisis.

The report includes 29 recommendations for improving Australia’s multicultural society. The government has committed $100 million over the next four years to implement the recommendations, though it is still working through the details and timeline. Here’s what it found.

Some of the recommendations are symbolic and have appeared in every multicultural review over the past 50 years. But other recommendations are far more concrete.

Firstly, it suggests there be a federal Multicultural Commission (a proposal the Greens have had on the parliamentary agenda without Labor support for some years). This body would be empowered to provide leadership on multicultural issues, hold opponents of human rights to account, and promote close collaboration between stakeholders at all levels.

Secondly, the panel proposes breaking up the Department of Home Affairs. This would be an attempt to reverse the surveillance and punishment approach that many believe the department to have towards migrants, refugees and some ethnic groups.

Instead, it suggests a new-look, nation-building, Cabinet-level Department of Multicultural Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship.

And from a policy perspective, the report recommends:

  • better ways to protect people’s languages
  • a citizenship process that is less about learning cricket scores and more about appreciating diversity and the importance of mutual respect
  • diversifying our media sector so it more effectively reflects and involves our minority communities
  • and ensuring the arts and sports sectors are spaces for intercultural collaboration and cooperation.

Overall, the report shows how marginal multicultural affairs have become in government – these ideas would go a long way toward refocusing the government’s attention where it is needed.

Why was this review needed?

The review was tasked with assessing how effective Australia’s institutions, laws and policy settings are at supporting a multicultural nation, particularly one that’s changing rapidly. This included looking at the challenges of refugee and immigrant settlement and integration, as well as the impact of world events on Australia’s multicultural society.

There’s also an economic element. The review looked at how we can ensure the wide-ranging talents of Australia’s residents are fully harnessed for personal and broader societal benefit.

These questions point to the need to bring together political, economic, cultural and social priorities in our government programs and policies. They also recognise the deeper challenges of racism, social marginalisation and isolation, which are often compounded by other factors, such as age, gender, class, health and disability.

These are not new questions. What is new is the recommendation for a strategy to engage in a sustained and interconnected way with the causes and consequences of our current failures. It is very unusual for a government to ask a review to do this.

The findings also bring together the perspectives and insights that many advocates in this space have long championed, but which have been swept aside and neglected for over two decades.

Importantly, the report stresses that a national commitment to multiculturalism demands bipartisanship.

I made an argument for a research strategy element in the review in 2023, and was later commissioned to develop a paper on research and data for a multicultural Australia.

The panel has now recommended that a national multicultural research agenda be developed by the new Multicultural Commission, taking account of my recommendations.

What will the government do?

There is still a long row to hoe – none of the recommendations have been publicly accepted (nor dismissed) by the government, and as yet no specific resources have been committed (despite the $100 million commitment overall). Significant action, however, is likely over the coming months and in future budgets.

While it is unlikely Home Affairs will be broken up immediately, some major moves to upgrade the capacity of the public service to deliver on the government’s commitments are likely. The courage of the government to advance these priorities in the election will depend in part on public reactions to the report and its implementation, as well as the stance of the Opposition.

Will the panel’s extensive work improve cohesion, enable better community relations, and unleash the social and economic benefits of a more collaborative society? The first test will be in how a proposed Multicultural Commission would be structured, led and resourced. We may not have long to wait.

Source: A major multiculturalism review has recommended bold reforms. How far is the government prepared to go?