1. Introduction When the then prime minister, Mr Paul Keating, launched the Commonwealth Cultural Policy on Tuesday 18 October 1994, he stated, "Our post-colonial status guaranteed that there would be a lot of questions about who we are, what level of culture we might reasonably aspire to... "The genesis of governmental support for culture in Australia might have been trying to identify "who we are". 2. Commonwealth government and cultural policies. The thirteen years 1983 to 1996 of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments was a time when Australia and Australians were very active in discussing issues about Australia's cultural and artistic activities. The "Creative Nation", Keating's cultural policy, was born under this umbrella. The Australian government's support for culture, however, dates back to the establishment of the ABC in 1932 or even further to the Commonwealth Literature Fund in 1908. But main stream support for the art and culture had been mainly private in nature. Official involvement by the Commonwealth Government in wider arts funding commenced with the announcement by the Prime Minister Harold Holt of the establishment of the Australian Council for the Arts (ACFTA) in 1967. This developed into the Australia Council, an independent statutory authority, that was established in 1975 by an Act of Parliament. The current Howard Liberal Government cultural policy "For Art's Sake-A Fair Go" is derived from its 1996 election paper and "Arts for Australia's Sake" in 1998. 3. Australia Council The Australia Council is a Commonwealth statutory authority, created under the Australia Council Act 1975, and responsible for determining priorities and providing a policy and budgetary framework for the arts. It features the "arm's length" principle and "peer assessment" model, playing a vital role in developing new audiences for the arts and promoting the greater appreciation of the value and role of the arts in the community. 4. Conclusion The Government support for the arts and culture, including financial support, is imperative for country with Australia's sparse demographics. Australia regards the arts and other cultural activities as worthy industries in their own right. Cultural tourism is now often discussed. It would appear that in the Australian context, Australia's cultural policies are practical and realistic. This paper focuses on the role and function of Australia Council as a mechanism for introducing government policy to society.

抄録全体を表示

This article aims to explain the significance of recent multicultural tendencies in Australian society as they effect tourism. Since the Labor Party held political power in 1972, Australia has been moving toward a multicultural society which respects each ethnic culture as equal under the law. The commitment to multiculturalism is seen in government administration and consumer activities. This social tendency is also clearly seen in restaurants, the tourism industry and hospitality management in Australia. A major potential growth area is regional heritage and cultural immersion tourism. In the past, this has been largely run by dedicated special heritage tour providers organizing tours to their own region or country areas. These operations have often been economically marginal and lacked the capital and expertise to tap into the mainstream tourism structures. Now, mainstream tourist operators and governmental tourist bureaus are assisting these operators with tour packaging, promotion and operation. There are two levels at which ethnic tourism develops within a multicultural society. First, there is a diffusion of foreign cultures or minorities' cultures into the mainstream society. This provides an important foundation. At this level, there are three main elements to fix the imported cultures. For example, (1) cross-cultural encounters stimulate a society, and (2) acceptability of foreign cultures has an essential role in receptiveness. To sustain ethnic tourism (3), productivity bases are also important. These elements introduce ethnic tourism, which is based on the culture of immigrants, into Australia. At the second level, ethnic tourism and other kinds of tourism become connected. For example, Aboriginal culture became one of the important factors for ethnic tourism in the mid 1980s. In addition, Aboriginal knowledge of wildlife is useful for ecotourism. Both elements, ethnic tourism and ecotourism, are compounded into the sustainable tourism of the 1990s. Aboriginal culture is an important asset, which is strongly promoted to domestic and international tourists as a unique cultural tourism experience. It is one in which tourists can participate. Traditional Aboriginal lifestyle promotes both environmental learning and cross-cultural understanding for tourists. This interesting connection allows sustainable tourism to flourish in Australia.

抄録全体を表示

The discourse of the 'multiculturalism critique', which has emerged in contemporary multiculturalism studies, insists that the conventional concept of multiculturalism is "essentialism". This is an ideology by the dominant group that aims to maintain the fixed relationship with ethnic minorities by emphasising the essential entity of minority cultures. This paper will argue on the problem of the discourse of the 'multiculturalism critique' when it is appropriated for the actual policy-making process, and to make suggestions on how to overcome the problem. For this purpose, the case of the 'Ethnic Affairs Commission (EAC) renaming controversy' in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in 1999-2000 will be examined. In 1999 the NSW government stated that the EAC should change its name to the Community Relations Commission (CRC). This meant that the word 'ethnic' would disappear from the name of an important organization of multicultural policies in NSW. This plan implied the changing definition of multiculturalism by the government, from 'multiculturalism as a principle for delivering social and welfare services' to 'multiculturalism as a system of producing value for integrating national society'. Many members of ethnic communities concerned that this was a symptom of declining multicultural social and welfare services by the government. However, the government argued that the word 'ethnic' was harmful because it created the division of 'us' and 'them' in society, and the word 'community' was better than 'multicultural' because 'community' was more 'inclusive': it was the appropriated logic of 'the multiculturalism critique'. Moreover, the member of the One Nation Party supported this change, although he did that from an anti-multiculturalism and Anglo-centric perspective. Therefore, the ALP government and the One Nation consequently cooperated in parliament passing the bill. This case suggests that when the discourse of the 'multiculturalism critique' is appropriated for multicultural policies, such as social and welfare services, it is problematic because it can undermine the legitimacy of such services. Hence, although the discourse is trying to improve cultural diversity in society, it consequently can conspire with racism and assimilation policies that aims to reduce cultural diversity. To overcome this problem, it is necessary to re-evaluate the philosophy of multiculturalism as a principle for delivering social and welfare services, as well as accepting the arguments of the 'multiculturalism critique'.

抄録全体を表示

In the inter-War period, a major problem in the Australia-Japan relations was how to defend the White Australian policy against Japan who had been building up an important status in international relationship. In particular, after World War I, Australia came to regard Japan as a threat to its safety. Japan's occupation of the South-Sea Islands (Nanyo Gunto) and her racial equality proposal at the Paris Peace Conference intensified such perception. Mr. E. L. Piesse was the Director of the Pacific Branch of the Prime Minister's Department from 1919 to 1923. As such he exerted considerable influence on Australian foreign policy. This essay examines Piesse's view on Japan and the Japanese reaction to his view. Piesse suggested the adoption of pragmatic policy towards Japan, but his proposal was rejected because most Australians increasingly considered Japan as a threat. Their judgment was made on the basis of partial and incorrect information. In this period, the basic structure of Australia-Japan relations was that the more strenuously Japan attempted to preserve her dignity as an empire, the more serious the threat Australia felt from Japan. Piesse thought that it was important to preserve White Australia without hurting Japan's sense of national pride. But his view was not supported, and he resigned his post after Japan's threat had become felt less keenly due to the Washington Conference which replaced the Anglo-Japanese Alliance with the Four-Power Treaty. In this way this structure continued to remain as a fundamental problem in Australia-Japan relations.

抄録全体を表示

本稿では、住民運動のリーダーやACT政府の職員に対し1997年7月と8月におこなった面接調査の結果にもとづいて、キャンベラの住民運動を分析した。そして、次の3点を明らかにした。(1)キャンベラにおける行政のやり方が1980年代半ばころから変更された。ACT政府はキャンベラの行政経費を削減しようと努めており、住民や民間開発業者の要望を聞いて都市開発をおこなうようになった。キャンベラで起こっている住民運動の争点の多くは、ACT政府の新しい行政のやり方と多かれ少なかれ関連がある。(2)筆者は1988年にもキャンベラで住民運動の調査をおこなった。キャンベラの住民運動の団体が1988年と1997年では大きく入れ替わっていたが、これは次のことを表している。キャンベラでは、日本の町内会のような地域住民組織が母体となって住民運動を組織するのではなく、特定の社会問題に関心がある住民が集まって団体を結成し、自発的に住民運動をおこなっている。社会問題が解決された後、団体が別の活動をおこなおうとしても、住民の支持を得られない。だから、その社会問題が解決されると、団体は住民運動をやめてしまうことが多い。そのために、キャンベラの住民運動の団体が9年間の間に大きく入れ替わっていた。(3)1997年には「作為要求型」の住民運動が開発地域(ガンガーラン)でおこなわれいたのに対し、「作為阻止型」の住民運動は再開発地域(イナー・キャンベラ)でおこなわれていた。こうした地域の種類と住民運動のタイプとの対応関係は、1997年だけでなく1988年にも見られた。ただし、新しい傾向が1997年には見られた。ACT政府が行政経費の削減をめざしているので、「作為要求型」の住民運動や生活関連施設廃止・行政サービス低下に反対する住民運動が完成地域や再開発地域においても起こっていた。

抄録全体を表示