上週六澳洲大選, 阿爾巴尼斯大幅度增加了議席, 成就了澳洲歷史中的神話, 把自81年前由Robert Menzies 建立的自由黨, 全面擊至潰不成軍, 能否重建現時仍未見端倪。澳洲人民面對生活成本上漲危機, 反對黨領袖達頓提出的政策, 卻無一被選民認同, 他擔任議員24年的議席也保不住。自由黨在上屆大選失敗後, 把團結重組自由黨的責任壓在不受選民歡迎的達頓身上, 就是一場豪賭。選舉結果證明自由黨誤判了澳洲人民對政府的要求,雖然達頓成功團結了自由黨, 卻是把它帶向更大的失敗。

在這次選舉中, 在墨爾本華人聚居的Menzies 選區的議員Keith Wolahan, 本刊上期專題指出他將面臨挑戰, 最終可能會把議席拱手讓給了工黨。Keith 表示自由黨不能只想著過去的澳洲社會, 而要是 面對今天的澳洲社會,才能有機會翻身,這是我完全同意的看法, 只可惜Keith 自己也無法做到這點, 作出對Menzies 選區多元文化社區的具體貢獻, 才令他可能要黯然在擔任一屆議員後下台。

我在本刊專欄曾多次提出, 今天的澳洲是多元文化社會,這二、三十年來到的移民並非傳統政黨的支持者, 他們亦沒有西方民主社會的政治理念。不過由於他們佔投票人口中的重要部份, 任何政黨若是能得到他們的支持, 將會很容易取得他們手上具決定性的選票。移民關心的不一定是意識形態或是政黨理念, 他們的需要是具體和實際的。包括了:政黨是否願意聆聽他們的聲音? 提供的政策是否對他們有利?或是與他們原居地國家是否友善?又或是他們是否願意協助移民融入澳洲等這些問題。

作為多元文化媒體工作者, 我嘗多次向自由黨與工黨領導人提出要正視澳洲社會的轉變, 特別是增強多元文化社會的凝聚力, 在西方民主自由平等法治的框架下, 訂出適合原住民、傳統澳洲白人移民及近年來定居的多元文化移民的政策, 並讓所有人都能團結在一起的澳洲價值。其中工黨領導人多願意聆聽並行出一小步, 例如去年工黨提出的多元文化框架檢討(Multicultural Framework Review), 是取消白澳政策後政府首次定出這方面的目標, 算是行出了第一步。自由黨卻以人人平等為推搪,不願意提供協助, 使移民在短期能認識、接納、並適應這一個新的社會。

明顯地, 若沒有政府政策配合的話, 在原居地社會有著優勢的第一代移民, 要在新的社會中能發揮所長, 根本就極度困難。自由黨在今次大敗, 可以是失去他們的支持的結果。

周偉文, 社長

The Liberal Party Fails to See Australia Has Become a Multicultural Society

In the federal election last Saturday, Albanese significantly increased Labor Party’s number of seats, creating a legendary moment in Australian political history. He shattered the Liberal Party, which was founded 81 years ago by Robert Menzies, into a state with uncertain future. As Australians face a cost-of-living crisis, the policies proposed by opposition leader Dutton failed to gain voter approval — so much so that he couldn’t even retain his seat after 24 years in parliament. After the Liberal Party’s failure in the previous election, they made a high-stakes gamble by placing the responsibility of uniting and restructuring the party on Dutton, who was unpopular with voters. The election results proved that the Liberal Party misjudged what Australians want from their government. Although Dutton managed to unite the party, he led it into even greater defeat.

In this election, Keith Wolahan — MP for Menzies, a district with a large Chinese population in Melbourne — ultimately might lose his seat to the Labor Party. Our previous issue had already pointed out that he would face a serious challenge. Keith himself admitted that the Liberal Party cannot keep clinging to its image of a past Australia but must instead face the reality of today’s Australia to have a chance at recovery — a view I completely agree with. Unfortunately, Keith himself failed to do this. He was unable to make concrete contributions to the multicultural community in Menzies, which would lead to his quiet exit after just one term in parliament.

I have repeatedly pointed out in this column that today’s Australia is a multicultural society. The immigrants who arrived in the past two or three decades are not traditional supporters of the major parties, nor do they necessarily share the political ideologies of Western democracies. However, they make up a significant portion of the voting population. Any party that can win their support will likely gain decisive votes. These immigrants may not care about ideology or party values — what they want are concrete, practical outcomes. For example: Is the party willing to listen to them? Do the policies benefit them? Is the party friendly toward their countries of origin? Will it help them integrate into Australian society?

As a multicultural media operator, I have often urged leaders of both the Liberal and Labor parties to face the reality of Australia’s evolving society — particularly the need to strengthen cohesion in a multicultural context. Within the framework of Western democracy, freedom, equality, and the rule of law, we need policies suitable for Indigenous Australians, traditional white Australians, as well as the more recent multicultural immigrants, to bring everyone together under shared our Australian values. Labor Party leaders have generally been more willing to listen and take incremental steps — such as last year’s Multicultural Framework Review, being the first step as the government’s initiative in this direction since the end of the White Australia Policy. The Liberal Party, however, used the excuse of “equality for all” to avoid offering assistance for immigrants in their effective understanding, accepting, and adapting to this new society.

It is obvious that without supportive government policies, first-generation immigrants — who used to have held advantages in their home countries — could find it extremely difficult to realize their potential in a new society. The Liberal Party’s crushing defeat in this election may very well be the result of losing their support.

Mr. Raymond Chow, Publisher