Chapter 6 National approach to planning and policy
Introduction
6.1
Since Australia’s introduction of a multicultural policy in the 1970s,
following the abolition of the ‘White Australia’ policy, Federal
multicultural policy statements have evolved in response to changing
government priorities and challenges facing Australian society.[1]
… Multiculturalism has been a hugely successful social policy
in Australia and multicultural policy’s bipartisan support in the 80s and early
90s was instrumental in creating social cohesion and a real sense of acceptance
and belonging among newly arrived Australians from diverse backgrounds.[2]
6.2
The Australian migration program is primarily Federal, with increased
State and Territory involvement and local government being important for front
line service delivery. There is, therefore, a need for coherent infrastructure
for policy development, planning and implementation that is informed by all
three tiers of government and a cross section of portfolios.
6.3
All Australian States and Territories currently have policies and bodies
dealing with multiculturalism[3] and a number of the state
approaches were outlined in evidence received by the Committee.
6.4
While all Australian State and Territory governments had established
bodies or agencies dealing with issues of cultural diversity by the 1990s,
jurisdictions varied in their approaches and the nature of their multicultural
policy structures, ranging from legislatively enshrined principles, statutory
bodies and mandatory reporting requirements to declaratory policy statements.[4]
6.5
A significant proportion of multicultural policy development and
implementation now occurs at the State and Territory level and a great deal of
work is also undertaken at the grassroots level, by community organisations and
non-government
organisations (NGOs).[5]
6.6
Multiculturalism is a set of interests relevant across a range of
portfolios including health, education, housing, and employment services. CALD
issues, including settlement, are also lifelong and inter-generational and
require cross-portfolio engagement:
The challenge for good government is to develop multicultural
policy, programs and services that positively address this diversity to
optimise good outcomes for individuals, local communities and the wider
society.[6]
6.7
The Committee believes that the principles of multiculturalism should be
embedded in policy development, and public and private service delivery.
6.8
Palliative Care Victoria supported a national policy commitment to
multiculturalism in Australia as providing an important philosophical
underpinning reflecting our vision and values and informing policies.[7]
When we understand the culturally and linguistic diversity
within our multicultural communities, we are much better able to plan, provide
access to, and deliver high quality culturally responsive and inclusive
services. We are also more likely to create an environment and associated
opportunities that promote health and wellbeing, participation in community
life and engaged and productive communities across Australia.[8]
Australian Multicultural Council (AMC)
6.9
The Australian Multicultural Council was officially launched on 22
August 2011. The AMC’s priorities as listed in its terms of reference are to:
- advise the Government
on multicultural affairs;
- have a formal role in
a strengthened access and equity strategy;
- have a research and
advisory role around multicultural policy;
- assist with cultural
diversity celebrations and Harmony Day activities; and
- implement a ‘People
of Australia Ambassadors’ Program to articulate the benefits of, and help
celebrate, our multicultural nation.[9]
Federal multicultural policy
6.10
As previously mentioned, The People of Australia: Australia’s
Multicultural Policy was launched on 16 February 2011 by the Minister for
Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, and reaffirms the
importance of a culturally diverse and socially cohesive nation.
6.11
The policy grew out of recommendations from the Australian Multicultural
Advisory Council (AMAC), which presented its advice and recommendations in 2010
through a statement titled The People of Australia.[10]
6.12
The adoption of the national policy, and the multicultural principles
that it promotes, was generally welcomed and endorsed.[11]
However areas for improvement were also identified.
6.13
Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre (FMRC) recommended expanding the AMC’s
mandate to include an examination of the effectiveness of access and equity
measures in place in Australia’s States and Territories. This would benchmark
best practice and enable determination of whether a Federal Multiculturalism
Act would provide more impetus for improvements in public sector performance in
respect of the implementation of access and equity measures.[12]
6.14
The Australian Capital Territory supported the policy’s focus on
diversity; inclusion; access and equity; tolerance; and the economic, trade and
investment benefits of multiculturalism. However, the Territory’s submission
adds that strong leadership is ‘required from the Federal Government to promote
the policy, multiculturalism and the benefits of cultural diversity to move
toward Australia becoming a truly respectful, inclusive and cohesive society’.[13]
6.15
In 2012, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) was
established under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to
‘enhance the understanding of, and respect for, human rights issues and to
ensure the appropriate recognition of human rights in the legislative process’.[14]
The Committee examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments
with Australia’s human rights obligations and reports to Parliament. The act
defines human rights as the:
…rights and freedoms recognised or declared by the following
international instruments:
(a) International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination;
(b) International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
(c) International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(d) Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
(e) Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
(f) Convention
on the Rights of the Child;
(g) Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[15]
6.16
Previously, the Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse
Society was the key document which guided the Access and Equity Strategy,
helping ensure government programs met the needs of a culturally and
linguistically diverse society. It integrated a set of service delivery
principles[16] concerning cultural
diversity into the strategic planning, policy development, budget and reporting
processes of government service delivery, irrespective of whether these
services were provided by government agencies, community organisations or
commercial enterprises.[17]
6.17
The Committee was told that this was an important framework and set of
principles that helped meet service standards for public service agencies. As
it is over 10 years old, however, it is in need of review:
Reviewing the charter will help to increase its relevance to
the changed demography, shifting policy settings and national priorities of
Australia. It will also help reinforce to government agencies, from the local
to national, what are appropriate and professional standards of service and
conduct.[18]
Multicultural policy at the State and Local level
6.18
In 1977 the Fraser Government announced a review of post-arrival programs and
services to migrants ‘to ensure that the changing needs of migrants (were)
being met as effectively as possible’, chaired by Frank Galbally.[19]
The resulting 1978 Galbally Report was seen as a watershed in the development
of multicultural policy. It identified multiculturalism as a key concept for
the future development of government immigration policy.[20]
6.19
Prime Minister Fraser agreed that Australia was at a ‘critical stage in
developing a cohesive, united, multicultural nation’ and there was a need to
‘change the direction of … services to migrants and … further steps to
encourage multiculturalism [were] needed’.[21] Following the Galbally
Report, State and Territory governments also established Ethnic Affairs
Commissions and Migrant Settlement Councils.[22]
6.20
A sample of the information on multicultural policies and practices in
those Australian State and Territories which contributed to the inquiry is
provided below.
State policies
New South Wales
6.21
In NSW, the Community Relations Commission for a multicultural NSW (CRC)
has responsibility for ‘promoting community harmony, participation and access
to services in order that the contribution of cultural diversity to NSW is
celebrated and recognised as an important social and economic resource’. It
acknowledges that multiculturalism is a deliberate public policy and takes
‘proactive steps to ensure a cohesive and harmonious society’.[23]
6.22
The legislative basis for the NSW policy is contained in the Community
Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 (NSW) and
the principles are implemented and assessed through the Multicultural Policies
and Services Program (MPSP).[24]
6.23
The CRC oversees the MPSP, is responsible for assessing agency
compliance with annual reporting obligations, and publishes a report on
compliance in the annual Community Relations Report to Parliament:[25]
…each government agency is required to have a current
multicultural plan which shows how it will conduct its business within a
culturally, linguistically and religiously diverse society. Like any other
corporate plan, a multicultural plan will identify strategic priorities, assign
corporate responsibilities and detail / outline timeframes for implementation.[26]
Victoria
6.24
Established in 1983, the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC)
provides independent advice to the Victorian Government to inform the
development of legislative and policy frameworks, and the delivery of services
to the culturally, linguistically and religiously diverse society.[27]
6.25
The VMC is an independent statutory authority operating under the Multicultural
Victoria Act 2011. Its objectives include the promotion of:
- full participation by
Victoria’s diverse communities in the social, cultural, economic and political
life of Victoria;
- access by Victoria’s
diverse communities to government services;
- unity, understanding,
mutual respect and harmony among Victoria’s diverse communities;
- co-operation between
bodies concerned with multicultural affairs and diversity;
- a better
understanding of Victoria’s diverse communities;
- the social, cultural
and economic benefits of diversity, and
- all of Victoria’s
diverse communities retaining and expressing their social identity and cultural
inheritance.[28]
6.26
A number of policy and program functions formerly located within the VMC
have been recently transferred into the new Office of Multicultural Affairs and
Citizenship (OMAC) within the Department of Premier and Cabinet. This office
focuses on the settlement of newly arrived immigrants and manages programs and
projects in language, cultural, multi-faith and student care areas as well as
housing the Settlement Co-ordination Unit (Refugee Action Program).[29]
6.27
In 2012, the VMC established eight Regional Advisory Councils across
Victoria to provide advice on settlement, multicultural affairs, service
delivery and citizenship issues; advocate on behalf of CALD communities; and
promote the benefits of cultural and religious diversity at the local level.[30]
6.28
Victoria also has a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, which
outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria and gives specific
legal protection to 20 fundamental rights. It is enabled through the Charter
of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and came into full effect on
1 January 2008.
6.29
The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public
authorities comply with Charter rights and consider relevant Charter human
rights when they make decisions.[31]
Australian Capital Territory
6.30
The Territory’s key multicultural policy document is the Australian
Capital Territory Multicultural Strategy 2010–2013, which has as its
vision:
That the Australian Capital Territory is recognised as a
leader in multicultural affairs and human rights.[32]
6.31
The six focus areas of the strategy are:
- Languages;
- Children and Young
People;
- Older People and Aged
Care;
- Women;
- Refugees, Asylum
Seekers and Humanitarian Entrants; and
- Intercultural Harmony
and Religious Acceptance.
6.32
All ACT Government agencies report annually on their progress against
the actions and key performance indicators of the strategy.[33]
6.33
The ACT was the first jurisdiction in Australia to enact a Human Rights
Act, the Human Rights Act 2004. This act provides an explicit statutory
basis for respecting, protecting and promoting civil and political rights drawn
from Australia’s international human rights obligations under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[34]
Tasmania
6.34
The Tasmanian Government works across all levels of government, with
stakeholders and Tasmania’s CALD community to promote multiculturalism
throughout the State. It does so through long-term programs, projects and
initiatives that assist multiple cohort groups to settle, integrate and build upon
skills bases.[35]
6.35
The Tasmanian Government states that its culturally and linguistically
diverse communities have an important role to play in the State’s unique
multicultural society, which remains one of its greatest assets and strengths.
6.36
The Community Development Division (CDD) in the Department of Premier
and Cabinet is the main link between multicultural communities and the
Tasmanian Government.[36]
6.37
CDD works with all levels of government, including other State
Government agencies, non-government organisations and community groups on
issues related to multicultural affairs. CDD provides advice to the Government
on multicultural affairs and citizenship in Tasmania. Its work includes:
- providing policy
advice to the Government on multicultural affairs;
- increasing awareness
of cultural diversity and appreciation of its benefits to the broader
community; and
- encouraging the
mainstream community to be open and accepting of new arrivals to the State.[37]
6.38
Tasmania’s Multicultural Policy, developed in 2001, provides a framework
encouraging Tasmanians to express, value and share one another’s cultural
heritage, and encourages full participation in the cultural, social and
economic opportunities that Tasmania offers.[38]
6.39
Attached to the policy is an Action Plan setting out initiatives under
each of the four interlinked objectives to:
- increase the share of
migrants coming to Tasmania;
- improve the retention
rate of migrants once they have arrived in Tasmania;
- improve access to
government services; and
- improve understanding
of the value and benefits of multiculturalism throughout the community.[39]
6.40
The Tasmanian Government explained to the Committee that, for it,
settlement is particularly important due to the small jurisdictional area for
such things as employment:
Tasmania has a high rate of migrants (and other cohorts such
as youth) leaving the state in search of greater employment opportunities and
critical services. As a result, a large amount of funding is invested by
Tasmanian organisations (government and non-government) into cohort groups
which is subsequently lost when these cohort groups leave the state.[40]
6.41
A secondary effect of emigration from Tasmania is that the State is
unable to increase population size and diversity, and so enjoy greater
integration between CALD communities and the mainstream as may be experienced
in other jurisdictions:
In essence, multiculturalism in Tasmania is negatively
affected by this issue via stagnation in growth.[41]
Local government
6.42
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) noted that:
Local government is the government closest to the people and
plays a significant role in influencing the economies and the communities at
the local level.[42]
6.43
The Committee received evidence that local government is uniquely placed
to provide support to Australia’s multicultural efforts.[43]
6.44
Ms Clare Hargreaves from the MAV told the Committee that local
government is one of the areas where the outcomes of both Federal and State
policies, and how they play out on the ground, can be seen.[44]
Councils face the same challenges as the other spheres of
government. We are involved in covering effective design and delivery of
services for the broad community, providing leadership in community relations
issues—which Victorian councils certainly embrace—the successful settlement of newly
arrived migrants and refugees and the part that can be played by councils to
contribute to that as well as the challenge that we continue to have reflected
in our workforce of the diversity of the population.[45]
6.45
The MAV described Victorian councils as progressively working more in a
range of goals around social cohesion, addressing race-based discrimination and
taking on a leadership role, for example through multi–faith endeavours.[46]
Local councils may also convene Local Settlement Planning Committees:
Twenty-three municipality-based Local Settlement Planning
Committees (LSPCs) are currently convened across metropolitan Melbourne and
regional Victoria. In some instances local councils are the convenors.
Composition varies but typically includes key government and community sector
human services providers and advocacy groups such as regional ethnic
communities’ councils. The MAV understands that generally, as the primary
funder of settlement services, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is
represented at LSPC meetings. LSPCs are intended to provide local stakeholder
agencies the opportunity to share information, coordinate service delivery and
collectively plan more strategically. Local council issues arising that need to
be escalated are referred to the MAV’s Multicultural Policy Adviser who
follows-up with relevant State or Federal government agencies.[47]
6.46
The Committee heard that whilst there are many municipal authorities
around Australia, they are very disparate.
A great many councils excel in how they deal with cultural
diversity issues in their municipalities…. Individually, as municipalities or
council authorities, they excel at how they engage with the new arrivals in
their municipality and how they deal with cultural diversity issues in terms of
access to and equity in local council services. Other councils are newer to
dealing with diversity because they have a different demographic profile. It
perhaps either has not changed much at all in the last few decades or is only
gradually starting to change, and this arises as a new challenge for them.[48]
6.47
The local government sector is very limited in the sort of resources it
can deploy to address multicultural policy development. The issue for local
government compared to federal and state is in the way that it is structured:
While individual councils can excel in how they respond on a
particular issue like cultural diversity …as a sector it is difficult to
respond consistently. This is where I think it is critical that we get support
from federal and state governments, which have the resources and the capacity
to work in partnership with local government to achieve mutual ends of
successfully settling newly arrived migrants and refugees and dealing with
community relations issues as they arise from cultural diversity.[49]
6.48
The Committee heard that currently there is no adequate working
partnership for local government with governments at the State or Federal
level. Mr Con Pagonis from the MAV described a waning of engagement with
the local government sector from the Australian Government and from State
governments. He also said that a dialogue is needed with the Federal and State
levels of government on the best approach, including addressing cost-shifting
and resourcing issues.[50]
We do see that previously perhaps there was stronger federal
and local government assistance around collaboration in that area.
… we feel that with a stronger plan between federal, state
and local government in this area that it could be better resourced and
supported in a more systemic sort of manner than it perhaps is at present.[51]
The MAV … maintains a positive relationship on settlement and
multicultural affairs with the Australian Government. However more formal
inter-governmental engagement has waned over the past five years with the
demise of the DIAC-led former Victorian Settlement Planning Committee;
and its successor forum, the Victorian Settlement Co-ordination Committee,
which has yet to achieve momentum.[52]
6.49
Councillor Stephen Dimopoulos of Monash City Council explained that when
the Australian Government had provided stimulus package funding, it was done by
direct approach to local councils, schools and other authorities and a lot of
councils took up the offer. He felt that this showed a relationship that worked
and he encouraged the Australian Government to extend the approach symbolically
through planning and organising as well as financing:
…extending a hand directly to local government as a partner
in multicultural affairs, because I think local government can do it effectively
and well.
… in multicultural affairs, use the same model and provide us
the opportunity to undertake projects in a way that is effective and achieves
the objectives of the government. We could do that well, I think, and it could
be provided on a dollar for dollar funding basis.[53]
6.50
The Committee also heard that local government should be involved in a
more strategic sense in the planning of settlement services and migration at
Australian and State Government level:
We are doing a lot of the
work on the ground, but we are not sitting at the table in a way that is
actually effective at the planning stages with the conversations that take
place between federal and state government departments.[54]
…There should be a
mechanism where the three players could come together at that early stage of
planning and discuss what the needs are, what is happening at the local
government level and what the priorities are. They need to be articulated at
the state government and federal government levels.[55]
6.51
Mr Pagonis explained that in
the early nineties there was a peak in engagement through the National
Integrated Settlement Strategy (NISS):
… [we] had the National
Integrated Settlement Strategy, the NISS, and under that a systemic framework
for intergovernmental engagement and planning on how we settle new migrants and
refugees and deal with all the issues arising. We established a very
sophisticated framework where we had state settlement-planning committees in
every state, we had local settlement-planning committees at the municipal level
and we had a national intergovernmental forum for reaching agreed positions on
the respective roles and responsibilities of federal, state and local
government.
…In the last two years,
that framework has simply dissipated. There has been no intergovernmental
meeting involving local government around issues of settlement planning in
Victoria for nearly two years now.[56]
6.52
Mr Pagonis was encouraged that
the Victorian State Government was in the process of establishing a
cross-portfolio settlement planning committee through the establishment of a
settlement-planning unit, primarily with a focus on State Government
portfolios:
… our understanding is
that when that convenes … it will include local government representation
through the MAV and federal government representation through DIAC. That is
still on the horizon but it is a good sign and an opportunity for local
government sectorally to re-engage with both state and federal government.[57]
6.53
Ms Eugenia Grammatikakis,
Monash City Council, asserted that there needs to be flexibility in identifying
particular areas, such as community relations:
…directly supporting new
communities that are forming within municipalities, but also established
communities that are there and whose needs, by virtue of growing older, are
becoming more acute. There is a lot of energy and resources at that grassroots
level that we are allocating at the moment in working with the older,
established communities.[58]
Centralised approach
Case study 6.1 The Canadian experience
|
In
1971, Canada was the first country in the world to adopt multiculturalism as
an official policy. The Multiculturalism Policy of Canada also confirmed the
rights of Aboriginal peoples and the status of Canada’s two official
languages.
Through
multiculturalism, Canada recognises the potential of all Canadians,
encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in
its social, cultural, economic and political affairs.
Canada’s
laws and policies recognise Canada’s diversity by race, cultural heritage,
ethnicity, religion, ancestry and place of origin and guarantee to all men
and women complete freedom of conscience, of thought, belief, opinion
expression, association and peaceful assembly. These rights are guaranteed
through Canadian citizenship, the Canadian Constitution, and the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (adopted 1982).
In
1984 a Special Parliamentary Committee Report, Equality Now, called
for a Canadian Multiculturalism Act and establishment of a national research
institute on multiculturalism and race relations issues. The Canadian
Multiculturalism Act passed in 1988 and affirms the policy of the
government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the
government, which respects and celebrates diversity.
|
Source Canadian Multiculturalism:
An Inclusive Citizenship,
<www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp> viewed 10
August 2012 and Policy and Legislation Concerning Multiculturalism,
<www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/multi-policy.asp> viewed
10 August 2012.
6.54
Evidence to the Committee generally agreed that multiculturalism
requires a whole-of-government approach to ensure that the best use is made of
Federal, State and local government resources.
The City of Whittlesea values cultural diversity, through a
whole of community and whole of Government approach within a human rights based
framework and is committed to a culturally inclusive mandate advocating for
multicultural policies to be endorsed as common practice across three tiers of
government.[59]
There needs to be a better articulation of the respective
settlement and community relations roles and responsibilities of the three
spheres of government. Furthermore, the competitive regime for funding community
based settlement service delivery militates against a more collaborative,
collegiate approach.[60]
6.55
There were also suggestions for overarching principles to be enshrined
in a national legal framework:
… multicultural principles expressed in The People of
Australia: Australia’s Multicultural Policy are not enshrined in Federal
legislation, and there are no accountability mechanisms binding the Australian
Government or its agencies for their implementation.[61]
New South Wales has found that a number of inter-related
mechanisms are required to achieve sustained and effective multicultural
implementation across all government agencies. The local experience includes …
multicultural principles that are enshrined in State legislation, with the
responsibility for their implementation delegated to the chief executive of
each public authority.[62]
6.56
In discussing Australia’s similarity to diverse jurisdictions such as
Canada, Victoria and New South Wales, which have multicultural legislation,
Monash City Council recommended the introduction of a Commonwealth
Multicultural Act to:
… enshrine the core principles of Australian multiculturalism
and to reflect the Commonwealth's commitment to Australia's cultural diversity
and enhance participation of all members of the community.[63]
6.57
The submission further outlined that a Commonwealth Multicultural Act
should recognise the diversity of people in Australia and their responsibility
to abide by Australia's laws and democratic processes, as well as ensuring
promotion of mutual respect and understanding, community harmony and social
cohesion and equality of opportunity.[64]
6.58
It was also suggested that such legislation should require government
departments to develop cultural diversity engagement strategies, in order to
encourage more innovative and strategic approaches to working with CALD
communities on long term issues.[65]
6.59
The Race Discrimination Commissioner argued that the international
conventions and treaties to which Australia is a signatory should guide the
development of our own domestic law protections. But she also stated that the
question of what else is needed should be addressed in any discussions about
new Federal legislation:
… we as a commission have [looked] at the coverage of the
state multicultural acts to identify what gaps there might be at the federal
level. At this stage we are not advocating for a multicultural act. We are not
saying that we are opposed to it either. One of the critical elements for us is
to look at what happens out of the consolidation of the antidiscrimination law
process. As we see it at the moment, what the state acts provide is certainly a
legislative definition of multiculturalism—although to some extent our Human
Rights Act defines our obligations within a human rights context. …. Currently
at a national level we have [an inquiry] provision under the Human Rights Act,
and we would look at how that provision to instigate an inquiry or
investigation will be treated in the consolidation process.
…irrespective of whether you have a multicultural act, you
still need the machinery of government in place to ensure that multiculturalism
is a whole-of-government response.[66]
6.60
When asked by the Committee how to ensure the machinery of government is
in place to ensure a whole-of-government response to multiculturalism, without
an act, the Commissioner responded that policy obligations should be formally
assigned across portfolios.
… if you have an Australian Multicultural Council it needs
to be adequately resourced to actually do that advocacy within government and
outside government. It needs to be appropriately placed to have authority to
enact its charter. It may well need to have a charter that specifically looks
at its remit not just across DIAC or FaHCSIA but also across the whole range of
departments in terms of what all of their responsibilities and activities are.
… So I think the human rights scrutiny process will actually enhance how it
works across government as well.[67]
6.61
The Committee at this time does not recommend Federal multicultural
legislation as the basis for the Australian Government’s principles and
policies.
6.62
The Committee also received evidence advocating a national charter of
human rights:
Australia is yet to further its international obligations by
bringing them into effect through domestic laws, such as in a Charter of Human
Rights. We are one of the few democratic countries that is yet to protect the
rights of its citizens in such a way.[68]
6.63
In December 2008 the Federal Government requested a National Human
Rights Consultation. The consultation was conducted by an independent committee
and aimed to seek a range of views about the protection and promotion of human
rights in Australia.[69] The committee handed
down its report in September 2009 and made a number
of recommendations including development of a Federal Human Rights Act.[70]
6.64
In April 2010, the Attorney-General responded to the report by launching
Australia’s Human Rights Framework, outlining a range of measures to protect
and promote human rights in Australia, including:
6.65
Other evidence suggested that the principles of multiculturalism could
be co-ordinated through a centralised office of multicultural affairs which
would monitor and deliver a whole-of-government perspective including health,
education, housing, and employment services.[73]
Recommendation 11 |
6.66 |
The Committee recommends reviewing the Charter of Public
Service in a Culturally Diverse Society in order to bring it up to date and
set benchmarks against which access and equity in provision of services is
measured. |
Recommendation 12 |
6.67 |
The Committee recommends that the Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet be tasked with delivery of a whole-of-government
perspective on services to CALD communities including health, education,
housing, and employment.
In undertaking this role, the Department should advise on
and integrate with the social inclusion agenda, and interact closely with the
Australian Multicultural Council in its roles of providing research and
advice on multicultural affairs and policy and strengthening the access and
equity strategy.
|
Recommendation 13 |
6.68 |
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government,
through COAG and the AMC, seek to develop national planning and policy
infrastructure for CALD services that includes State and Local government. |