Terminology and Concepts

Principles of Multiculturalism

New South Wales has a long and proud history of welcoming and recognising the value of its cultural and linguistic diversity.

In 2000 it built on this proud record, being the first jurisdiction to include Principles of Multiculturalism in State law. These principles recognise the ethnic, religious, linguistic and racial diversity of New South Wales as one of our greatest social and economic assets. Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000.

An important mechanism of the Principles of Multiculturalism is the accountability of the chief executive officers of all NSW public sector agencies as directly responsible for the implementation of these Principles.

Multiculturalism

The term ‘multiculturalism’ was first advocated in Australia in 1973, and was premised on the assumption that diverse cultural groups should be able to express and celebrate their cultural identity, including language.

The concept of multiculturalism represented a departure from the policy of assimilation, which promoted the absorption of migrants, minority cultures and languages into the dominant culture. 

Multicultural policy and practice has been further developed within the Commonwealth, and within the eight states and territories. See 25 Years of EAPS for more detail.

Multicultural policy and practice in New South Wales

The practice of multiculturalism in New South Wales grew initially from policy and program development within individual government agencies, essentially to address ‘access and equity’ issues faced by the growing numbers and level of diversity of people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

New South Wales was the first state in Australia to create a government agency, the Ethnic Affairs Commission, to oversee multicultural policy in the State. The Commission was established in 1979.

Government services began to respond to this by modifying program design, and delivering targeted programs to address the needs of ethnic communities.

This has included:
•    The provision of interpreter services in order to communicate with clients of a non-English speaking background;
•    Communication strategies which use a range of mainstream and language strategies to provide information to all people in the community;
•    Inclusion of people from culturally diverse backgrounds in consultation processes and structures; and
•    The use of identified multicultural and bilingual positions to assist in the delivery of government services.

In 1983, the NSW Government coordinated multicultural activity under a state-wide program called the Ethnic Affairs Policies (then Priorities) Statement. This program is still the main vehicle for multicultural policy, planning, and program and service delivery in the State.

In 2009 the program was renamed the Multicultural Policies and Services Program to more effectively describe the intent of the program, and reflect changes to the public sector environment.

Community Relations

In 2001, the NSW Government introduced the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act (2000). 

The Act reflected new ideas about how ethnic communities are to be regarded within the overall community, incorporated newly emerging concepts of citizenship and enshrined the Principles of Multiculturalism in State policy.

Furthermore, the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW was re-named the Community Relations Commission For a multicultural NSW. This name change reinforced the term 'community relations', recognised that our society represents a 'community of communities', and emphasised a spirit of inclusiveness over the singling out of particular groupings of people.

This over-arching definition of ‘community’ is closely linked with newer ideas about citizenship, and the responsibilities and rights associated with it.

The concept of 'citizenship'

With increasing globalisation, national borders are becoming blurred, and the notion of an individual having only one homeland is fast becoming outdated. These changes have contributed to the need to redefine the concept of 'citizenship'.
In recognition of this fact, the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 encompasses a broader definition of the term 'citizenship'. The Act states that

This broader definition of citizenship encompasses notions of active citizenship, where people work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work and other such efforts, as well as democratic citizenship within the structures, practices and legal norms of the broader political community. 

Terminology: Suggested forms relating to cultural diversity

(for use by government agencies)

For many years, government agencies used 'non-English speaking background' as a broad term to describe the target population group for their multicultural policies and programs.

This term is still appropriate, where it describes:
•    the clientele of English as a Second Language (ESL) programs;
•    clients who require the assistance of an interpreters to communicate with a government agency;
•    where language or literacy issues present barriers to accessing and engaging with government services and programs.

Currently, the term ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’ has come into common usage among government agencies as a broad descriptor for groups and individuals who differ according to religion, race, language and ethnicity, but excluding those whose ancestry is Anglo-Saxon, Anglo Celtic, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Often, this term is used to capture the Australian-born descendants of immigrants, or people who come from countries where English is widely spoken but who may be unfamiliar with Australian governance and its structures (including many South Asian and African countries or other countries with British colonial histories). Such groups should also be considered in the planning process, and may require targeted assistance at times from government agencies.

The blanket use of the term ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’, however, does not always reflect the complexity and breadth of diversity. When used in the context of multicultural policy, it is understood as being inclusive of the widest range of cultural groups and individuals that make up the Australian population, recognising that we all have points of difference from one another but are all part of the one community. Therefore a group, gathering, community, meeting or assembly of people can be described as ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’, or comprised of ‘people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds’, but an individual cannot.

The use of the acronym ‘CALD’ is strongly discouraged by the Community Relations Commission. In the first instance it reinforces the mistaken notion that the population is divided into ‘CALDs’ and others. The term ‘culturally and linguistically diverse community’ includes members of all cultures, and reinforces that we are a ‘community of communities’.

Therefore, rather than relying on this simple shorthand, Government agencies are encouraged to consider carefully which groups they are referring to or addressing, and select the term that most accurately reflects what they are trying to convey. For example:

•    terms which describe the whole population or clientele of a Department, which invariably contain people from diverse cultures, religion and language backgrounds include:

•    terms which describe people who cannot communicate in English and may require the assistance of interpreters or other communication strategies, include:

•     terms which describe people who are recent arrivals to Australia may include terms such as:

•    terms which describe people who are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and who define their own cultural identity partly or wholly on this basis include:

•    terms which describe people with skills in languages other than English include:

It should be noted that the use of the acronyms (such as NESB or CALD), whilst convenient, is strongly discouraged by the Community Relations Commission. These acronyms often are meaningless to anyone not familiar with jargon. Further, they may hinder people within government who are not involved in multicultural policy and planning from properly considering the target group and appropriate response.