In the last three decades, Australian governments have developed policies of indigenous self-determination and self-management. In particular, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which was established in 1990 under the `ATSIC Act 1989', took the historically important step of institutionalising participation of indigenous Australians into the nation-wide decision making processes. ATSIC was more than an integration of its predecessors, which were the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission, and the National Aboriginal Conference. Its elected indigenous representatives are given power to allocate federal funding of around A$lbillion to nearly 2000 indigenous organisations. ATSIC's main role is to formulate and implement programs for indigenous Australians. But in practice, allocation of funding to appropriate organisations that deliver services in the communities is the main concern of the Regional Councils. The administrative arm of ATSIC supports the activities of the representative arm (including the Board of Commissioners and the Regional Councils) and assists program administration. ATSIC certainly has limits in its `self-determination' power due to its institutional basis in the Commonwealth administration. One of the objectives of ATSIC is, in fact, to promote the development of self-management and self-sufficiency among indigenous Australians. The elected representatives of ATSIC do not have power to negotiate its Budget or to appoint its administrative staff. The Minister of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs represents ATSIC in the Federal Parliament and in the Cabinet. Furthermore, the financial resources are not sufficient for the Regional Councils and the Board of Commissioners to allocate funds to all applications of programs submitted by indigenous communities. ATSIC is not, therefore, a complete form of indigenous self-determination. Rather, it is one of the institutions that ensures indigenous voices are heard by the Commonwealth government. Only when diverse regional interests and conditions are taken into account, and when various appropriate institutions are formed to meet the concerns of indigenous and non-indigenous residents, would the principle of self-determination be viewed as a sustainable political framework.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to examine ethnic policies at a state level in Australia. It investigates how multiculturalism has been functioning in the state of New South Wales(NSW). NSW is used as the case study since it has been progressive in developing multicultural policy through initiatives set in place by its Ethnic Affairs Commission. Some of the policies initiated by the Ethnic Affairs Commision have been regarded as the most progressive in Australia even more progressive than federal government policies. The report "Participation" on how ethnic people had encounted difficulties in accessing public services and information was the start of NSW's trial at multiculturalism in 1978. The Premier of NSW had also made the speech "Mainstreaming" on the same topic as "Participation" in 1983. This speech has effected a series of reforms of state government organisations. The reforming of state organisations has been guided by the Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement released in 1983. This was the first attempt in Australia at reforming government organisations to make sure ethnic people have equal accesss to public services. However, the ethnic policies led by the Ethnic Affairs Commission have not always been successful. The Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement has not been greatly welcomed by state organisations. The next step to promote multicultural policy by the Ethnic Affairs Commission was the NSW Charter of Principles for a Culturally Diverse Society. It required every organisation of the state government to scrutinise itself and make changes to realize the ideal of multiculturalism. This Charter was very well received when it was issued because no other so clearly had stated principles to enshrine multiculturalism in Australia. However, ethnic groups supposed to have benefited from the Charter have complained about the Charter because they consider the Charter to be just written idealism. It is not a law and cannot belegally enforced. Legal enforcements require clear evidence for the matter to receive a court judgement. But judgements and evidence are related to standards and values, which vary in a culturally diverse society. In this sense, the Charter is more reasonable because it depends on an organisation's self judgement about the ideal. It is likely to be more effective than laws which need limiting conditions to work. Although it is just a written idea and is considerably vague, the Charter allows some freedom of understanding. It is most important that individuals be able to assume and embrace the ideal of multiculturalism. On this count, the Charter for a multicultural society is considered a most appropriate policy vehicle for achieving Multiculturalism.

抄録全体を表示

According to a survey conducted by The Japan Foundation in 1993, the number of those learning Japanese language in Australia is about 160,000people showing an increase of approximately three times compared with a survey conducted in 1990. As the number of Japanese language learners gets increased in such a short period and teaching of Japanese starts to attract attention of society along with it, there had come up generally a voice of having concern about overshooting of voluminous expansion and comments denying the necessity of learning Japanese. This paper serves the purpose of analyzing the content of comments denying the necessity of learning Japanese as seen in the newspaper articles in the first half of the 1990s. Those newspapers of which the subject of research was centered are "The Australian" and "The Sydney Morning Herald". The main tenor of those comments are as follows: (1) As a result of a rapid increase of Japanese language learners, those able to deal with Japanese are already in surplus in the labor market. (2) Japanese is a "difficult" language for English native speakers. (3) Language proficiency of teachers of Japanese is low with effective Japanese language teaching not put into effect at schools. (4) Japanese economy is in a slump for too long. Chinese has more practical usefulness than Japanese. (5) Australian business doesn't need large numbers of people skilled in Asian languages including Japanese. (6) The number of those learning Japanese had increased too many. But Australia is a country taking over European culture. (7) Common language of business in Asia is English. (8) Business and industry generally place greater priority on cultural awareness than on language proficiency. It is more effective to. learn Japanese culture and society than Japanese language. Teaching of Japanese is said to have slowed down in terms of its growth rate from around 1995except in the primary sector. As if it goes together with that trend, comments denying the necessity of learning Japanese as seen in the newspaper articles had decreased remarkably in comparison with the first half of the 1990s. It would take a little longer, though, until one will have come assessing that trend as an exaltation of non-interest toward Japan or as an evidence of decrease of news value along with the fact that Japanese had come to occupy a certain position in school education system in Australia and had become a "normal" foreign language in the same manner as French or German.

抄録全体を表示