[in Japanese]

View full abstract

Multiculturalism in Australia is an official Nationalism discourse which has been restructed in response to the rapid progress of Globalisation. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Multiculturalism is quite different from conventional Nationalism and Multiculturalism can be a new kind of National Integration principle. In this paper official documents of Multiculturalism are analysed in terms of Official Nationalism and National Integration discourses. The logic of justfying Multiculturalism has transferred from "Emphasising the economic interests of Multiculturalism" to "Multiculturalism as the source of National Integration". "Galbally Report" in 1978 argued that Multiculturalism ensured breaking away from "White Australian Policy" and encouraged cultural diversity in Australian society. Besides, this report recommended to introduce "Self-help" discipline for efficient practice of Multicultural policies. In 1980's, "Mainstreaming" replaced "Self-help" discipline and the "Access and Equity" strategy was introduced. Besides, "Fitzgerald Report" in 1988 placed Multicultural policies as instruments for improving Australian National Interests, especially economic interests. However, criticism to Multiculturalism like G. Blainey's argued that Multiculturalism eroded "Core" (British or Western) values and institutions of Australian society. In response to this kind of criticism, Federal government argued that Multiculturalism could be limited for keeping these values and institutions. But criticisms to Multiculturalism has continued until 1990's (e.g. P. Hanson and One Nation Party). Therefore, National Multicultural Advisory Council's report and "A New Agenda for Multicultural Australia" by Federal government both of which were published in 1999 strengthen the legitimacy of Multicultural policy again. These documents advocate the concept of "Inclusiveness" which implies that Multiculturalism is consistent with democratic values. Consequently, "Inclusiveness" makes possible to maintain National Integration without using the logic of "limits of Multiculturalism". Moreover, these documents insist that Multiculturalism is the unique cultural heritage of Australia, so according to these discourses, "Australian Multiculturalism" is vital for integrating the Australian as "Multicultural Nation". In this way, as a results of reducing validity of the logic of "Economic merits of Multiculturalism", Multiculturalism discourses in Australia have changed to emphasise Multiculturalism as the source of National integration. Consequently, the boundary between Multiculturalism discourses and Nationalism discourses become vague and the new discourse of "Multicultural Nationalism" is beginning to be formed in Australia in the late 1990's.

View full abstract

Australia celebrated the centenary of its federation on the first day of the 21st century. The period between 1988 (bicentenary of colonisation) and 2001 had been the time for Australians to rediscover 'Australianess' in their history and to project it in the picture of the future Australia. Aboriginal reconciliation, as well as republican and constitutional debates could be understood as exercises in the search for a new national identity. Australian immigration and aboriginal policies were instruments for building an Australian nation. They were both racially discriminatory, by which legitimate Australians were determined and selected. The policies, therefore, reflected images of 'an Australian nation' which legitimate Australians must have shared. Multiculturalism was addressed when Australia came to terms with Asia-Pacific nations. It was an ideology to negate an identity of 'white Australia', to announce an Australian nation on the basis of cultural diversity, and to distinguish 'Australianess' from the legacy of British colonialism. Multiculturalism in Australia has been an ideology of nationalism. Aboriginal reconciliation has, too, provided an ideology to reconstruct Australia's history and to innovate a nation and national culture. However, there are not yet agreements between non-indigenous and indigenous Australians about how 'reconciliation' is to be institutionalised. Remarks on multiculturalism extended to include indigenous culture, but most indigenous people in Australia rejected the idea of marginalisation of their culture as one of the multi-ethnic-cultures in Australian society. The document that the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has worked on for 10 years could only 'celebrate common commitment to an ongoing reconciliation process'. Genuine reconciliation may be achieved by empowering indigenous self-determination and by making compromises on local and practical issues. If multiculturalism in Australia evolves towards the idea of ensuring contacts and dialogues across diverse cultures, and encouraging non-indigenous Australians to understand the significance of 'land' for indigenous people, all Australians may be reconciled to the creation of an original culture in the society where everyone has a place.

View full abstract

This paper investigates important aspects regarding the promotion of indigenous "self-determination" as a measure to improve the current circumstances for indigenous peoples in Australia. It also examines how the aspects have been realized in university reform currently being promoted in Australia. The paper specifically focuses on Japanese and Australian programs involving indigenous issues and how it is related to the importance of their right to participate in a self-determination process involving indigenous issues. The participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should be promoted legally, through the review of issues such as the Aboriginal deaths in custody. Finally, the paper discusses the expansion of the university legal education system that has been designed for the promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders judicial participation. This is through the introduction and development of a learning assistance system at entry level and during the attendance period. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' marginal legal situation in Australian society has been confirmed through the examination of the above aspects. This may be instigated by the high rate of arrests and unfair treatment being caused by a relatively low level of understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in criminal judicial aspects. On the other hand, there has been a legal initiative of introducing Aboriginal views in a self-determination process to prevent them from being falsely charged. This is a pro-active correction policy, that is trying to increase the presence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in legal organizations, through their participation in legal matters. This is specifically being developed through the extension of a legal education system at university. A learning assistance program designed for the promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' studies is given during the study of law at university. Additional support, such as a Pre-Law Program, is also given in the period prior to their entrance to a law school. During their attendance, the Law Faculty supports a trial scheme for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that provides them with equal academic opportunities. Although the university extension program discussed in this paper for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia raises various issues, it is expected to play a crucial role in the achievement of their legal capabilities and "self-determination".

View full abstract

The aims of this research essay are to identify the role of local government in community care services for elderly people and to examine the importance of local democracy. This is done through a case study of two community service centres in two local government areas of New South Wales, Australia with different demographic compositions. I particularly focus on the relation between 'decentralization' and 'local democracy' as a framework for this stud y. This research topic is worthwhile because the influence of 'decentralization' to local government in Japan will increase after the introduction of a new long-term care insurance from 2000. This new insurance will provide for community care services for elderly people. The research shows that the direct participation by community members, volunteers, and clients in the policy-making process is very important to the development of local democracy at the local government level. Even if the level of decentralization for the local government is high in terms of legal and financial matters, decentralization will not lead to better provision and coordination of community care services for elderly people. Another result shows that the local government has to recognize clearly the role and responsibility and create the process of positive community participation not only in service provision but also in policy-making. The development of local democracy has various advantages. These include improving informal community networks and helping in the provisions of stable services by community volunteers. The local government areas in NSW show variation in demographic compositions (especially, in ethnicity) and financial situation. It was found these diversities strongly affect the content and system of the service coordination for elderly people in the areas researched. Therefore, these characteristics of the coordination system in each local government should be considered and respected. More importantly, the upper levels of government must consider the difficulty of coordinating complicated demographic conditions faced by local government and support the local government in maintaining equity and equality in community services in each local area.

View full abstract