It's disappointing to see many commenters here blaming the solution. StephenLMeyer, it's not just disappointing but *amusing* that you quote so selectively from the linked article. For example:

"... in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable, and successful immigrant societies 'dampen the negative effects of diversity' by constructing new identities."

Australia has already proved very good at "dampening" whatever negative effects diversity has. The question is about any recent failure to achieve it in the short run.

I believe it is necessary, if "social capital" isn't going to appear spontaneously in a country with high immigration and a diverse population, for public policy to help it along.

That social capital can be built through policies of "assimilation", nominally reducing differences, or "multiculturalism", which nominally celebrates diversity. But these two objectives are neither opposed nor even incompatible. I think that what Australia's assimilationist policies achieved in the years before Fraser *is* multiculturalism, and I think that what multicultural policies have achieved since is even more constructive.

Sure, there are problems. Accept people countries torn by war and demagoguery and yes, you import some of their troubles. This would be *worse* without a public policy of community-building, and it is exacerbated by a few people scapegoating one minority or another, or diversity itself (ha!), instead of just behaving like good neighbours.

For commenters here to adduce gangs and riots as a problem with public policy or with ethnic diversity is sorely mistaken. The gangs are criminals and we've *always* had those: the "criminal element" was once supposedly all-Irish!

The Cronulla riot was a consequence not of diversity but of opportunistic scapegoating on the part of our respected PM's pet radio shock jocks.

Hilaly, Hansen, Devine and Jones are of a kind: "just saying what we're all thinking": that the victims of our crimes are to blame for their own misfortune, and that our own situation is threatened by our neighbours.

It's classic scapegoating. We don't all think that, and it's not on.

When a respected leader drives a wedge, he creates a space where extremism looks normal.

Xoddam

Putnam expresses some pious hopes amounting to "she'll be right" which you quote.

Perhaps the most devastating passage in the whole article reads as follows:

"...Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance and social solidarity. For instance, white soldiers assigned to units with black soldiers after World War II were more relaxed about desegregation of the army than were soldiers in all-white units. But Putnam acknowledges that most empirical studies do not support the "contact hypothesis." In general, they find that THE MORE PEOPLE ARE BROUGHT INTO CONTACT WITH THOSE OF ANOTHER RACE OR ETHNICITY, THE MORE THEY STICK TO THEIR OWN, AND THE LESS THEY TRUST OTHERS. Putnam writes: "Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods." (Emphasis added)

I'm not saying this is good. In fact, I think it's APPALLING. But we don't tackle the problems associated with diversity by pretending they don't exist.

And, no, we cannot guilt people into behaving differently. All we can do is guilt them into hiding their true feelings. Feelings which will emerge at the ballot box.

I don't have any solutions. But this much I do know. Multi-culti – which amounts to segregating people into ethnic and religious ghettoes, is PART OF THE PROBLEM, not part of the solution.

We also should drop the pretence that all cultures are compatible with liberal Australian democracy when plainly they are not.

It is curious, if we look outside this Commonwealth (of Australia) at the wider British Commonwealth of Nations (you know, the ghost of the old British Empire), which is most assuredly not predominantly Anglo-Celtic in a racial sense, to see how much of British imperial symbolism and legal and administrative heritage is not merely retained, but positively clung to, in these now long independent and distinctly different countries. It must have been a dreadful empire! Just as well none of it rubbed off on us!

Even more interesting that the former Portuguese African colony, Mozambique, which was never part of the British Empire while it existed, has in recent years joined the British Commonwealth! The fatal attraction of that dreadful British heritage, one can only assume.

The fact is, all Australians have been lied to by a long succession of unperceiving politicians who have themselves been duped into repudiating their own heritage and descent.

I was born in Australia. My father was born in Australia, and his father before him. None of us ever lived anywhere but Australia all our lives, but not one of us were or are anything other than British subjects. There is, and never has been, any such thing as 'an Australian citizen'! Twice the Commonwealth Parliament has propounded this falsehood: in 1948 and 1973; but in neither case is the legislation consistent with the necessary implications of Section 44 of the Constitution. See this link to a post to the topic "The Nature of Australian Citizenship": http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5275#65639 . Mr Justice Kirby, heads up!

How dare this cavalcade of predominantly native-born unperceivers mask my true status of British subject resident in Australia! How dare they deceive those who have migrated into believing they have any status other than that of either alien, or, if they have sworn at naturalization the same oath as prescribed in the Constitution for our parliamentarians, British subject resident in Australia.

Recommitting to Multiculturalism? Best of British luck! Instead we should be committing to a study and celebration of our British heritage.

FRANK...... the point is... not that I dismiss 'thoughtful investigation and evidence' but that when confronted WITH such evidence, the MC crowd just ignore it and dismiss IT.... and go back to what they were doing.

So I am saying that MC supporters do so in SPITE of evidence to the contrary, so what then is the point of presenting evidence after a certain point ?

There IS evidence for MC being a misguided, unhelpful practice, but it is ignored.. just like the evidence and personal testimony of the PILOT who flew the plane to Syria moving Sadaams WMD that now every leftoid claims never existed.

The issue is not 'evidence' but attitude TO that evidence.

So... when evidence is trampled on..we are left with the 'sledge hammer and headline' :) ....get it now ?

Again... I didn't mean to sound rude toward you, just being my usual colorful self.

Culture is an ever evolving factor of mankind. Some cultures are focussing on social aspects, others on religion & some on social engineering. All have one thing in common. They all have some degree of fanaticism. Great cultures have come & gone because of this. Why ? I can't be totally sure but I believe that whenever a culture was borne of the success of a successful (so-called) civilisation, the infiltration of another group/society invariably spelled the decline of the host society. We have had multiculturalism for several centuries now but we haven't found the right formula yet to develop a culture of multiculture.

Oh Forrest Gumpp, I hate to burst your bubble. You may regard yourself a British subject, but Great Britain certainly doesn't. You are a foreign national there. As foreign as somebody from Burkina Faso say, or Peru.

Ask any Australian citizen who has tried to live there or work there. You have to jump through the same hoops as a citizen from the previously mentioned nations.

Nobody migrates to Australia to become a 'British' subject. To do that they go to an island off the coast of Europe.

I do not understand why there is this persistent notion that multiculturalism is about hanging on to your previous culture. Or that is against integration. Integration is inevitable. With each successive generation. Multiculturalism is not about denying Anglo saxon heritage.

On applying for citizenship it should be mandatory to learn English and about how our particular system of government, the Westminster system works. Unfortunately, it will mean that new Australians will understand and know more about how their particular type of democracy works than Australians born here.

On a last note. The ABS published figures, which show that new migrants and their children are on average more successful educationally, job wise and financially. I wonder if maybe they hung on to some of their 'old' values and see education as a worthy pursuit?? The long weekend, obsession with watching others play sport and laid back attitude not quite so entrenched yet.