We are Australian

A recent article by George Megalogenis, a highly respected journalist and author who has written extensively on Australian history and social structure, discussing the indigenous voice to Parliament suggested a three-way categorisation of Australian society into “First Nations”, “Old” and “New” Australians.

Megalogenis defined Old and New Australians in the following way:

Old Australians are non-Indigenous people who have been here for at least three generations, with parents and grandparents who were also born here. New Australians were born overseas or have at least one migrant parent.

In my view, this definition is much too simplistic and misrepresents how immigration is changing Australian society.

It presumes a very 1950s-1960s static status for Australian society.  Yes, we even used the term New Australians back then to describe the arriving immigrants from war torn and impoverish Europe.  However, in the intervening period something remarkable and elevating has happened.  We have evolved into a very dynamic amalgam of all the old and new that is now our version of the melting pot.

Breaking Down the Boundaries

Research based on the 2006 census shows how society had changed as a result of the post-war immigration program.  This research looked at the extent of inter-partnering – both marriage and other forms of partnering – between immigrants and their descendants with the broader community.

Over thirty immigrant groups were considered and research found thatalmost all ethnic groups experienced increasing inter-partnering with each generation beyond the original immigrant.

The extent of inter-partnering reaches very high levels by the third generation (two beyond the original immigrant). For most ethnicities the percentage of inter-partnering is greater than 70% and for many it is greater than 80% and for some more than 90%.  As expected simply by weight of numbers, the predominant “other” party in the inter-partnering is Anglo-Celtic or, according to the Megalogenis definition, “Old” Australians.

Some variation in inter-partnering was observed across the range of ethnicities but the overwhelming trend with each generation was for an ever- increasing degree of inter-partnering. The level of people’s education influenced the extent of inter-partnering with more highly educated people having a higher level of inter-partnering.

Australia’s Melting Pot

Most observers of Australian society would not be surprised by these findings. Anecdotally it is all around us. However what surprised me was the extent and rate at which we are being transformed by immigration.

The Megalogenis definition suggests a hard boundary between Old and New Australians. He implies that Australian society is socially rigid and that immigrants and their offspring are not integrating in to the broader society.  He does not acknowledge the extent of inter-partnering that is on-going and that the community rather than becoming sharply dividing on ethnic lines has, in terms of the post-war migration at least, evolved as an ever more blended community.

Certainly there is plenty of division in Australian society but in the process so far – there is more to say about this later – ethnicity hasn’t been the issue it may have been.  Where we are failing is in matters of income and wealth, age, property ownership, location and education.

Typically this blending begins slowly but after three or four generations it has reached a very high level of inter-partnering.  The researchers highlighted the following point, for example, about Greek immigrants, who were traditionally quite resistant to change.

Almost all post-World War Two migrants from Greece arrived as couples or families with young children. As has been noted in many studies, the second generation of Greek ancestry have exhibited a relatively low propensity to marry out. The 2006 census results show a similar pattern with only 37 percent of second generation males of Greek ancestry and 31 per cent of females married out.  This outcome reflects a strong tendency for first generation Greek families to concentrate residentially and to develop ethnic specific social institutions, including the Orthodox Greek church. Yet despite this ethnic solidarity, by the third generation 67 per cent of men of Greek ancestry and 61 per cent of the women have married out.

What is quite wrong in the Megalogenis definition of Old and New Australian is the lumping of everyone who has one immigrant parent in with the New Australian group.  This is odd because it is a grouping that includes aging unskilled European immigrants from the 1950s and 1960s with more recent professions arrivals from China and India and their children and their children’s children whether they have chosen to “marry out” of the community or not.  I couldn’t think of a more disparate grouping and for what purpose?

His article paints a picture of a power struggle between New Australia and Old Australia.  I can accept this as a concept that seems logical but to me he has not defined either of these groupings very well.  As stated above, New Australia is a disparate grouping within which there is likely to be as much disagreement as agreement about whatever values you might want to think of.

Old Australia is not really that cohesive either.  Certainly there are plenty of baby boomers in there along with remnants of the silent generation and more than a sprinkling of the X and Y Generations and lets not forget the Millennials.  Along with the age differences we have wealth, property ownership and education differences.

As the 2006 Census researchers highlighted, by the third generation partnering selection was reflecting the ethnic mix of the whole population and correspondingly a negligible influence from the particular ethnic line they may have come from.  The researchers commented that:

These patterns point to increasing social interaction between the second and third or more generations of these ethnicities and people outside their ethnic group.

Given the evidence of such a high level of ethnic mixing the best you can say is that we are, hopefully, evolving into some kind of well-integrated melting-pot society.  In this context I am puzzled by Megalogenis’ trumpeting that New Australians are now the majority of Australian.   Of course they are and given the extent of inter-partnering that has been going on, they would need to be.  It is a mathematical certainty assured by the Megalogenis definition of this group.

Political Shifts

However what does this mean in a socio-political sense? The reshaping of Australian society, the consequence of the substantial inter-partnering, is having plenty of impact.

One such example is the outcome of the Federal and Victorian State elections in March and November of 2022. In the once conservative leaning eastern suburbs of Melbourne, the major conservative party, the Liberal Party lost votes and seats.  An explanation for this is that these areas are experiencing an influx of young renters many of whom have different values to those who have resided there for eons.

Meanwhile, in western suburbs, the major left-liberal party, Labor lost votes but not seats.  In these once migrant dominated and left leaning suburbs it is again the young who are diluting the tribal loyalties of the generally immigrant workers who have resided there for eons.  I suggest many of these younger people whether they have inter-partnered or not, are most likely having a different set of imperatives to those of their parents.

I am, you are, we are Australian

My central point in all of this is that the Megalogenis definition of Old and New has no relevance to the range of power initiatives that are in play in contemporary Australia.  It is a non sequitur.

Another point of relevance in terms of the future is that what was observed out of the 2006 Census is the outcome of the immediate post-war immigration policy.  Since around 2000 and even more since 2010, we have experienced the great Asian migration wave driven by quite different immigration policies.  We will not know the impact of the Asian immigration wave on society for some decades.  The 2006 Census researchers remind us of this:

For ethnic communities of more recent migrant origin from South and East Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the second generation is still young and not yet of marriageable age and there is no third generation yet.

These communities bring with them cultural traditions that are quite different from those people of Southern and Eastern European backgrounds who dominated migration during the 1950s and 1960s. Whether the social integration of the second and third generations of these groups as measured by intermarriage will be similar to those of the non-English-speaking European migrant communities will not be known for several years.

Whilst the above is irrefutable, I am courageous or foolish enough to suggest that whatever the differences, if Australia continues to draw its immigrants from all over the world and thus avoid a dominance of any particular ethnicity, it will be almost certain that over the generations inter-partnering will increase to point that each ethnic group effectively does itself out of existence.

We can be reasonably proud of what we have achieved so far but this is no basis for resting on our laurels.  Weaknesses do exist in our existing immigration policies particularly around temporary migration and uncertainties regarding long-term residency status.

Discussing the impacts of immigration can be fraught as can criticism of such a distinguished thinker as Megalogenis.  However, he reveals a sad form of jaundice in writing:

For the record – as the child of Greek migrants – I do not want to see the many glorious tribes of New Australia coalesce around the idea that we can repurpose the barbs of our childhoods, and tell Old Australia that this is our country now, and you can go back to where your ancestors came from.

As one who has a strong sense of my Irish-Catholic identity, I am aware of how long it took for the Irish to be fully accepted in Australian society.  Hence, I can understand the bitterness expressed above.

However, whilst I have a love of Ireland and its people, I am not sad that Irish-Australians are now largely obliterated as an ethnic entity of substance in Australia. However, I am reassured that my children are not and hopefully never will be part of an Old Australia with whom we have a grudge of the type displayed by Megalogenis.  This came about via the simple act of inter-partnering.

The outcome of the referendum on the Voice is in the hands of all Australians.  They will vote according to their understanding of the matter and how they regard it as individuals.  In this process I doubt that ethnicity in the calcified form presented by Megalogenis or in any other form will be much of a factor.

By the way, I will be voting Yes for First Nations peoples to have a Constitutionally enshrined Voice to the Australian parliament.