The trivial incident in Lindsay does not need to be reflected on, as Tom Calma claims, nor does it have any connection with “…Arabic speaking people being subjected to a different questioning regime when seeking permanent visas”, or Dr. Haneef.

As Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, Calma has in interest in beating the ‘racist’ drum – it keeps him in a job, and might even get him the Race Commissioners position permanently if he keeps on beating the drum.

Calma’s “…increasingly acceptable and politically licensed practice in which the race card was played to garner political support from segments of the community” is absolute nonsense. With enforced multiculturalism and repression of freedom of speech, the exact opposite is true. The “segments of the community” he talks about get no say at all, and he is happy to have the situation made worse, if possible, by further dogmatism from the multiculturalists.

When, on rare occasions a government does respond to public opinion, it is, according to Calma, capitalising “…on people’s fears and insecurities.” What a piece of arrogant racist crap! Australians, like anyone else, are quite entitled to have reservations about any immigrants, and governments have duty to take that into account, although they rarely do, being too busy sucking up to ‘world opinion’ and the likes of Tom Calma.

As a member of a race forever bellyaching about the British invasion of ‘their’ country, Calma has one hell of a cheek criticising white Australians for objecting to immigrants who have nothing at all in common with the host population. Perhaps he sees non-white immigrants as potential allies in the fight against whites. The aboriginal prison population is known to gravitate to prisoners of Middle Easter origin.

Continued……

…continued

Calma claims that multiculturalism has worked well over the past two decades. He wants us to believe that because it is in his own, paid, interests. Multiculturalism has been a total failure here and internationally. Only separation of the hotchpotch of races in Australia has kept the peace, so far. We should be saying: despite multiculturalism, we have been lucky or, more correctly, the easy-going nature of Anglo Australians has kept the lid on the nastiness which has occurred overseas, where host populations take more interest in the well-being of their countries that we do.

White Australia and the white Western world have indulged the likes of Tom Calma to their own detriment. Non-whites are the real racists, as we shall discover as we continue commit cultural suicide at the behest of a Third World dominated United Nations and a few European pansies.

Quote

" Multiculturalism in Australia is the cornerstone for such a program. As a policy of community harmony it has worked well over the past two decades, replacing the failed policy of assimilation. It was and remains our most successful anti-racism strategy; it needs ongoing support and reinvigoration so that it can meet the new challenges that a culturally diverse society continues to present."

Unquote

I have been and continue to be a firm supporter of Multiculturism since it's inception during the Immigration Ministerial office of Ian McPhee in the Fraser Government.

I agree with much of Tom Calma's article, however,I believe that the 'assimilation' policy as such referred primarily to Government intentions towards the Aboriginal population.

Multiculturism has not been of benefit to Aboriginal Communities.
To our undying shame, mainstream australia is eager to utilise Aboriginal Culture and Art to woo tourist to Australia who all want to leave with a didgeridoo or other artefact as a souvenir yet we continue to marginalise our Aboriginal people by moving their living areas such as 'one mile dam' within 1 mile of the Darwin CBD because their presence do not fit the desired image,or move on aboriginal campers such as David Gulpilil when they choose to camp under the stars as they have done all their lives on the fringe of the City.

Perhaps this is an anomaly that Tom Calma should address to act against such discrimination so we might truly become a multicultural Country.

Meanwhile the 'white supremacist' rantings of olo contributor
'Leigh' clearly indicate We have a long way to go if we are not to become a racially intolerant society where racists gather in white sheets and pointed white hoods concealing their identities to lynch blacks.

caracas and Tom Calma get a grip. People are far more robust than you give them credit for.

Today I employed 2 new teams of tradesmen, one Aboriginal and the other Moslem Turkish Cypriot. They will be judged on their production and their will be plenty of banter. Some of it on race lines.

I daily deal on an intimate level at work with Fijian Indians,Anglos, Lebanese,Dutch, Italians,Chinese,Greeks and who knows how many others.

This is reality, and those who want to harp on about racism in Australia do not know sh@t from Shinola when it comes to the real world.

The Fijian Indian thinks the Chinese a joke who thinks whitey bludges who laugh at the Allah blokes who sneers at the the poncy Italians who.........et bloody cetera. And all get on just fine.

Graham Y and whoever give us a break from this topic, so Boaz etc and Morgan etc can show us another side of themselves.

EG the Drones- our current great rock band or Nolans exhibition at the NSW Art Gall., or why Bob Dylan is great; or why 'look' is a verb, and what that implies....et bloody cetera

FASCINATING STUFF.....

<<we have an obligation to ensure that government policy provides a strong and sustainable social framework to fight racism, xenophobia and discrimination, as well as promote social cohesion and community relationships.

Multiculturalism in Australia is the cornerstone for such a program. As a policy of community harmony it has worked well over the past two decades, replacing the failed policy of assimilation. It was and remains our most successful anti-racism strategy>>

WORKED WELL/SOCIAL COHESIAN? Macquarie Fields, Cronulla, 'Lebo Thugs' type videos on youtube, Child raped by 10 men due to 'cultural' nuances.. 'white' guilt? come ON....

Sooooo.. assimilation has failed? in the very next breath, the author says:

"52% of all marriages were across ethnic/cultural lines" err..sounds pretty 'assimilative' to me.

Dare I say it ...again? "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE, ONE RACE" yep.. sounds like it's happening with 52% of us. Great stuff. Can anyone imagine that in all those marriages, each individual culture is being clung to? and that both cultures are being passed on to the kids? (who would be quite confused if they did)

One one hand he is saying "Lets nourish diversity" then on the other
"Diversity is dissappearing" through intermarraige.

Encouraging diversity DIScourages intermarriage.

MULTI-CULTURALISM IS WEDGE POLITICS.
creating more division and difference. Creating barriers between people groups.. emphasising "We are not you, and you are not us" is WEDGE politics. Farrrr better to say "We" are all Australians...and let nature take it's course.

It stands to reason and common sense, that if there happens to be a large majority of a particular cultural group, that those from other cultures will be absorbed, and that in being absorbed, they will also enrich the prevailing culture, as Yeast is to a dough mix, and the end result is much more pleasing.

ARABIC SPEAKING PEOPLE? I have a feeling that this might be more "Arabic speaking people who are Muslim"? if not, it should be.

TOM.. knock knock..is anyone there? "Hello/Coeee"

If you feel that Arabic speaking Muslims don't require some additional scrutiny then my friend..your knowledge about Islam and its history is sadly lacking.

Hitler spoke of a 1000 yr riech... and this is fine as long as he limits himself to Germany, does not attack anyone, and uses it for political rhetoric of a harmless nature. UN.....fortunately, history tells us that was not the case.

"The Fatherland will reign over a 1000 yr Riech"
"The world and all that is in it belongs to Allah and his Apostle"

Can you spot the difference? I can't!

"Our religion requires us to carry a concealed deadly weapon...to school, on busses, at airports" (Sikhs)
any problem?

"My religion calls for me to carry a 12 guage shotgun, in case some other bloke is carrying a knife" (ex bouncer at gym last night)

"My religion allows sexual relations between old men or old women and young male or female children" (Children of God...60s)

I would be thanking GOD Almighty Tom, that at the root and heart of the Christian traditions, there are values like

-"The meek shall inherit the earth"
-"Blessed are the peacemakers"
-"As the Father has sent me, so I send you"
-"Come to me all who labor and are burdened down, and I will give you rest"
-"He who would be first among you must become the servant of all"
-"Honour your father and mother"

No matter how far our modern society has departed from these beautiful values, they remain as huge golden nuggets to be rediscovered and re-applied.
There are no "knives" no "defend the messenger of Allah with our lives" no "fight those who do not believe in Allah...until they are subjected, humiliated"

Nope..nothing like that.

All over the world, and the stranger the place,
The heart is the same, it’s just a different face.

Could someone explain to me the meaning of the word ‘multiculturalism’? We could go on debating whether we should accept or deny the tag, but what would difference would it make? It’s a useless word.

Both immigrants (such as me) and people born here (such as my kids) are never going to change certain things, such as their lineage, their parents, their place of birth, or their mother tongue. Australia will continue to accept migrants from English and non English speaking countries. It will never have a language other than English as its official language, unlike some other ‘multicultural’ countries such as Canada or South Africa. The police and the courts will continue to uphold the Rule of Law and aim to suppress violence and other criminal actions from whosoever, regardless of the colour of their eyes or hair.

My main concern with ‘multiculturalism’ (whatever this plastic word might mean) is that in artificially supporting some particular cultural differences over others, another ‘culture’ (possibly mine or yours) will in turn be disadvantaged.

Red and yellow, black and white,
All are precious in his sight.

No matter how much BOAZ tries to sugar coat it, Christianity has just a brutal a history as Islam and is more thoroughly soaked in the blood of innocents.

Constantine killed more Christians than were killed in all the years prior to the formal adoption of Christianity as the official religion and those that followed we no better.

Those specious religious arguments against multiculturalism come more from a political stance rather than a moral one.

"The Fatherland will reign over a 1000 yr Riech"
"The world and all that is in it belongs to Allah and his Apostle"

He forgot to add -

"Therefore go and make disciples of ALL nations. . ."

I suppose that there may be some moderate Christians as well, but if it's good enough to generalise for one belief, why not for all?

Despite the old Monarchist dinosaurs in our society who deplore the development of tolerance between cultures,there have been examples of Community actions that have transcended the era of the White Australia Policy as this 1961 Darwin experience illustrated <http://www.roughreds.com/rrtwo/manning.html> and to confirm that it was no one off abberation, the City of Darwin was one of the first to elect a Chinese Lord Mayor In Harry Chan and Greek and Italian builders did most of the early building construction.

The final hurdle we must conquer is the acceptance of Indigenous Australians entitled to share the wealth whilst understanding their unique culture and historical disadvantages in having been thrust into hostile Colonial expansion that confiscated their homelands and proceeded with a policy of genocide well into the 20th century.

"As a policy of community harmony it has worked well over the past two decades, replacing the failed policy of assimilation."

Multiculturalism has been an abject failure and will one day be looked back in derision as a failed utopian ideology which inflicted untold misery upon the host populations of Western nations. It is by very nature divisive, no matter how loudly the multi-culti crowd proclaim that it is in fact inclusive. To be truly inclusive, a host nation would assimilate immigrants into the mainstream culture and not segregate them into different ethnic and cultural communities.

Of course, the counter-argument is that all this multicultural "diversity" will "enrich" us by exposing us to alternative cultures and ways of thinking. But we can get that by travelling overseas. The real danger of "diversity" is that eventually it makes the nation itself incoherent. In truth, there is not a single example in history where cultural or ethnic diversity has been a "strength" for a nation.

"If addressed, we can look forward to a new era of social cohesion in Australia for 2008 and beyond."

Multiculturalism has created a schism within Australia where numerous parallel ethnic and cultural groups are managing an uneasy coexistence. With no end in sight to mass non-Western immigration, it's difficult to see how our increasingly 'diverse' (read ethnically and culturally divided) population will be able to remain a single cohesive national community.

"In truth, there is not a single example in history where cultural or ethnic diversity has been a "strength" for a nation."

Ever been to the United States of America?

Interesting proposition Botheration:
How has ethnic diversity strengthen the USA?

Between 1820 and 1979, more than 49 million immigrants came to live in the USA. Historians are pretty unanimous on the effect these frontier-people had on America as they sailed in past the Statue of Liberty toward Ellis Island - they helped make it the most powerful and influential nation on Earth.

Third-generation American John F. Kennedy called America "a society of immigrants, each of whom had begun life anew, on an equal footing. This is the secret of America: a nation of people with the fresh memory of old traditions who dare to explore new frontiers.... "

Re Australia, I guess the answers here depend on how you define a nation's success or failure. In comparison to other nations, Australia's policy of multiculturalism has been a success. That's not to say no race riot has ever occurred or will ever occur.To say it's been "an abject failure" (as Dresdener did) is clearly silly from any reasonable viewpoint - the vast majority of Australians live and work with people from other cultures in safety and harmony every single day.

Botheration,
It seems to me that increased numbers (as in, more consumers, entrepreneurs, workers) was the main spur and not ‘diversity’. If all the immigrants mentioned had been from the same culture you may well have had the same or even greater growth.

Monocultural leaning Japan had few problems growing in the absence of state sponsored multiculturalism/ethnic diversity.

I am still scratching around for a definition of the word ‘multiculturalism’. Before we can answer whether the USA is a multicultural success story, we must first define the word.

Now Botheration has perhaps given a clue to the definition of the word by saying that the USA is very multicultural because it has received lots of immigrants. If that is so, then Australia is stuck in a policy of ‘multiculturalism’ no matter what path the government chooses to follow from now on. (If we choose to halt all immigration now, the population will drop alarmingly, but that is a different issue.)

Was Australia a multicultural continent in the centuries before European colonisation? The original inhabitants never received many immigrants from outside the continent, but they did speak dozens (or was it hundreds) of different languages.

Was South Africa multiculturalist in their attempt to manage their waves of immigrants under the system of apartheid?

Horus wrote: "It seems to me that increased numbers (as in, more consumers, entrepreneurs, workers) was the main spur and not ‘diversity’. If all the immigrants mentioned had been from the same culture you may well have had the same or even greater growth."

Perhaps. Let's discover a new continent, feed it immigrants from just one cultural group, wait 500 years and compare.

But the truth is I disagree with you. Japan's an excellent counterpoint. Its monoculture hasn't been able to produce anything like the cultural sphere of influence that the USA has - and yet economically it's almost competitive. The USA reaches right into the heart of the continents that it has drawn it citizenry from - Europe, Africa, Asia and South America.

President Kennedy's point is one made by many anthropologists about multicultural societies. Migrants are, generally, brave, hopeful people. Migrants of different stripes make for a country that's tolerant, elastic and robust.

A walk in Manhatten is a terrific education in the drama and colour and strength that multiculturalism brings. Don't get me wrong, the USA is a flawed beast - a profoundly terrible place as well as a great one. Multiculturalism itself is a flawed beast. But can anyone think of a system that's better? That's more life-affirming and exciting? That brings the world to our children and helps them appreciate what citizenship means and teaches them not to look uncertainty and fear in the face and embrace it? That's fairer?

Fortune favours the brave, and the brave are not only the migrants, they're also the citizens who welcome them and are not afraid.

Dan S de Merengue - yes, a common definition would be helpful. I guess I'm using it to signify a country with migrants from many different cultures that respects those cultures rather than attempts to render them void through assimilation. So Australia, the US and the UK rather than, say, France. Obviously it's also as apposed to mostly monocultural countries like most Asian countries.

Botheration,
Re Cultural influence, I am not sure that Japan is as outclassed as you imply. Japanese toys: Pokemon, Digimon, tamagochi etc, Japanese film: anime, Music formats: Karaoke, Sony, and Panasonic, give Japan punching power with the younger generations, well beyond its weight division

But apart from that, a lot of the cultural variation that many western political thinkers revel in is littler more than window dressing .It may be aesthetically stimulating for some to see characters dancing in the street in 15 different national costumes, or living in little Italy’s or Chinatown’s, but I question its net contribution to the commonweal. And as we are seeing in Aust, pandering to the differing groups has become a growing political past time, very wasting in terms of money & time.

We can have diversity of thinking in the sciences, in industry and education without any of the multicultural baggage we’re currently dragging around – and diversity in the aforementioned fields is where it really adds up

Really? You live in a far Japanesier world than I. I totally agree that Japan punches above its weight, but I think Hollywood outreaches Pokemon. Think about how many hours of US-made TV you watch a year, compared to Japanese TV. How many movies. How many books. I don't know too much about electronics, but Japan has Sony, the US has Microsoft. Even-stevens?

I'm never sure what people who don't like multiculturalism actualy want. French-style assimilationist policies? Or White Australia? Or Indigenous Australia? Where do you want us immigrants to go? My great-grandfather came here from Bath in England, and, actually, if you can get me an English passport, I'll happily return for a while - would like a few years in the old country.

Personally, I think multiculturalism works well. (But then I like a good parade - and I often eat in Chinatown.) Often, first generation immigrants have a tricky time, but by the second generation the new culture has part-assimilated, part-enriched - think the British, Chinese, Southern Europeans, Vietnamese. The same will happen with the Sub-Saharan Africans and the Iraqis. Because of our geographical positioning, we're never going to have a preponderance of one particular group, and it's pretty obvious our Britishy culture is in no danger of dying out. I live in a very diverse, inner-city area and there's a lot of tolerance. It's not perfect, but it's a community.

Boazy, you wrote: "Can anyone imagine that in all those marriages, each individual culture is being clung to? and that both cultures are being passed on to the kids? (who would be quite confused if they did)" I know heaps of people who's parents came from different cultures. (Including one Muslim/Christian family.) I can't think of a single case where anyone I know doesn't revel in and enjoy their diffent cultural heritages.

Isn't it generally Anglo-Saxon types who don't like multiculturalism? I think most ethnic Aussies are pretty at home with it.

Botheration,

1)"I'm never sure what people who don't like multiculturalism actually want”

The govt to BUTT OUT would be a good starting point:
Laissez-faire – rather than govt funded funfairs.

Let Australia form its own unique identity – it will increasingly verging towards its own identity with or without an official MC policy, but having a govt sponsored MC policy only slows the process, and wastes resources.

2) “Personally, I like a good parade - and I often eat in Chinatown”

I find that most who say they are in favour of MC have this shallow understanding on the issue.They confuse pluralism, or the benefits of living in an affluent, liberal society with MC.
MC Australia has few positives which would not also be found in any affluent, liberal monocultural society.

And, when you delve below the bread & circuses, MC reals nature shows as a form of separatism–with few tangible pay-offs.

So, does "point one" display your deep, dazzling understanding of the issue and stand in stark contrast to my shallow one? If so, wow. I usually like to debate the merits of different arguments, but clearly I'm intellectually outclassed when someone *tells* me that they get it and I don't.

Sorry. That's sarcasm. As was the "love a good parade" sentiment. Was trying to point out that you were ever-so-slightly patronising.

"MC Australia has few positives which would not also be found in any affluent, liberal monocultural society."

Dunno. You've not convinced me. What monocultural societies? I love Japan, but I think Australia has more positives, most of which shelter under the multiculti umbrella. A plurality of opinion, attitude and culture. For me, the multicultural countries are the most fun - us, America, Britain. Great, English-speaking countries, reinforced with their wire mesh of disparate cultures. I feel this more because I lived two years in a monocultural country (Laos - admittedly poorer). I cannot tell you how I yearned for unfettered access to German thought, English book reviews, Scandinavian democracy, Western medicine. I wanted to see Spanish installation art and hear Japanese dub. Call me shallow, but yes, I yearned for omelets. And I wanted to see Warney spin.

Horus, I do appreciate your political view. I disagree with small government types, but I have often worked with them in the philanthropic world, where a "fair go" ethos can transcend party politics and we all agree to tap the uber-rich. But you've said nothing to convince me that a bit of federal money (not a lot) thrown at multiculti causes doesn't make Australia a slightly cooler place to live. Plus, if you're doing sums, what's the opportunity cost? For example, multiculturalism has been of huge advantage when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Can you measure that? Can you offset it?

Dazzle me.

Just by the by, do you also want a laissez-faire approach to immigration? I don't advocate open borders. Why not keep some control of our borders but implement policies that encourage a strong, cohesive society?

You may call it patronising – sorry–but you really do see MC in those terms:It seems it was the monoculturalist nature of Laos – rather than underdevelopment– which stopped you having access to “English book reviews” or “western medicine”. So following on from that, I could safely assume that if went to Japan
( or “France”) I would also miss such joys of MC.And, it would not be too far fetched to guess I’d also be restricted to one type of cuisine & find the study of English outlawed (pull the other leg!).

( & by the by, how much “unfettered access to German thought” or “Spanish installation art", or Salman Rushdie literature or Danish cartoons for that matter, do you think you’d find in Bradford within MC, enriched England ?)

Core MC is not having access to foreign periodicals (or cuisine)
It is rather proactively trying to entrench mores & identities which would otherwise wither away.

The plurality you relish in Aust is the not the result of MC cross-fertilisation.It was present long before MC. It was a traditional core value in the dominant culture. A number of the more recently introduced cultures do not harbour such traditional plurality www.csmonitor.com/2003/0630/p09s01-coop.html

And I put it too you that govt sponsorship of MC (& I include Fed, state, local) is not insubstantial. Many would be surprised by the extend of financial support for ethnic media, arts & NGOs.

And as for MC being an advantage to our foreign policy. It is very much a two edged sword .There are as least as many negatives as positives. ( some of our MC sons & daughters as in the
London bombers.1 & .2 believed that if they could change our foreign policy –they’d revert to their traditional modes of fixing things ).

I have a theory call it Horus’s theory of MC - the further you are from an MC induced enclave, the more interesting you find MC

Tom Calma and the HREOC apparently believe "Traditional Owners" living in their "Traditional homelands" communities and houses do NOT have

- right for family to live with them ;

- right for family to visit them ;

- right for friends to visit or stay with them ;

- right for qualified tradespeople to visit and conduct repairs ;

- right to run a business under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions;

- right to construct or live in a house (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to obtain a fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions lease for their home (constructed with government monies) ;

- right to work (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to receive legal assistance to have legal issues arising considered judicially ;

HREOC with Ron Wilson decided a public hearing into these issues should NOT occur...

Likely Tom Calma and Co were amongst those objecting to the efforts from Mal Brough to have the private land owners - the Land Trusts, issue all their tenants valid leases for the houses almost all constructed from public funding... such apparently unreasonable....

Activities elsewhere repugnant it seems are fine in Tom Calma's topsy turvey world of "racial rights" ...

Oh lordy, Horus. What do you think I was doing in South East Asia for two years? Working for Coca-Cola? Of course I'm interested in underdevelopment. I'm the first to admit there's more I can do, but I have worked on development projects in poor countries, and I hope to do so again. The experience of living in that environment was one of the most amazing of my life, but it's also my only experience of truly living in a monoculture, so I was simply trying to explain what that felt like.

I can tell that, for whatever reason, you feel quite superior to me in your understanding. Fine, but don't let that cloud your argument. I'd be more persuaded by your vision for the future than your dissertations on my failings - I already know about them!

As for funding, while "I put it to you" has a nice, mother-country, Rumpole-of-the-Bailey-esque ring to it, evidence it is not. I have no idea what proportion of federal and state money is spent on multiculti good works, but clearly neither do you, so perhaps we should both do some research.

Hope you had a fantastic Christmas & do have a happy new year.

"Between 1820 and 1979, more than 49 million immigrants came to live in the USA. Historians are pretty unanimous on the effect these frontier-people had on America as they sailed in past the Statue of Liberty toward Ellis Island - they helped make it the most powerful and influential nation on Earth."

Botheration's effusively romantic account of the U.S. experience with immigration overlooks the historical reality that up until 1965, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the U.S. were from European countries. That cannot be said for the masses of Third Worlders now flooding into the country. Moreover, 'Americanization', not multiculturalism, was the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. "Diversity", especially of a non-European variety, was certainly not encouraged.

"To say it's been "an abject failure" (as Dresdener did) is clearly silly from any reasonable viewpoint..."

Dewy-eyed supporters of multiculturalism never tire of proclaiming that ethnically and culturally 'diverse' societies are more desirable places to live. Colourful street festivals and a vast variety of culinary delights are chief among the happy-clappy benefits the multiculturalists invoke. But where is there a successful multi-ethnic country? History is rife with examples of failed multi-ethnic states. Advocates of multiculturalism invariably point to Australia and Canada as examples of multicultural utopias, conveniently overlooking the large Anglo-European majorities that essentially hold those nations together. Without these core ethno-cultural majorities, it's likely such multicultural wonderlands would be reduced to discordant hodgepodges of competing ethnic groups.

"...the vast majority of Australians live and work with people from other cultures in safety and harmony every single day."

I suspect many Australians are disconcerted by the buildup of non-assimilating diasporic communities in their midst. They've witnessed first-hand the immigration-driven cultural and ethnic transformations of their communities into something they no longer recognise as their own. But, in a nation ruled by political correctness, to publicly question multiculturalism or unprecedented levels of immigration is to invite scorn, ostracism and outright character assassination.

"..multiculturalism has been of huge advantage when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Can you measure that? Can you offset it?"

There is no evidence to support such a view. Asian countries, for example, will never accept Australia into their region - no matter how 'multicultural' we proclaim ourselves to be. As "..multiculturalism has been of huge advantage when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Can you measure that? Can you offset it?"

There is no evidence to support such a view. Asian countries, for example, will never accept Australia into their region - no matter how 'multicultural' we proclaim ourselves to be. As Mahathir Mohamad bluntly put it, Australians "are Europeans, they cannot be Asians". And nor should Australia seek to erase its European heritage and culture as part of some misguided attempt to 'enmesh' itself into a foreign region.

As for the financial costs of multiculturalism, read:

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0301/article_208.shtml