Cultural Legislations - Differences between Canada and Australia - Essay Example

A critical Evaluation of Canada and Australian Cultural Policy Legislations Name: Institution: Date: A critical Evaluation of Canada and Australian Cultural Policy Legislations Introduction Globalisation and increased international trade have opened up the global foreign cultures. In this regard, unlike in the last three decades when cultures were classified and distinct based on the region and ancestry, increased cultural education and awareness has improved cultural perceptions among nations (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez & Gibson, 2005). Consequently, a number of regulations have been developed to govern cultures in different nations as an approach to promoting peace, understanding and harmony (Pieterse, 2009). This essay evaluates the cultural legislations in both Canada and Australia. The choice of the nations is based on their shared cultural and historical background in that both are common wealth members, and to recognise the Queen of England as their official head of State (The British monarchy, 2015). However, despite a wide range of shared legislations on multicultural legislations, the two nations have their differences in the developed multicultural management legislations. The essay mainly evaluates the similarities and differences between the two nations’ cultures legislations, explaining the reasons for any existing diversity, and how each of the diversities enable the nations meet their strategic goals. Cultural Legislations Similarities between Canada and Australia This evaluation section establishes the list of the legislation in both Canada and Australia that are shared and are similar. As such, the section evaluates possible reasons as to why both nations share the legislations. A multicultural Society Status The first step in any nation adopting cultural legislations is the attainment of an official multicultural society status. This process involves the recognitions for the existence of different cultures in a society. As such, it involves the development of policies and a national operational framework trough which all the cultures are represented and their interests represented (Mwakikagile, 2010). Under a multicultural society, there are two main types of cultures, namely the majority and the minority cultures respectively. On one hand, the majority culture is the dominant culture that has the largest population of members in the society. Often, the majority culture has an influence on the economic, political, and social operations and governing in such a nation (Maciejewski, 2002). On the other hand, the minority culture is one that has few members in the society and whose interest could be easily foregone and unincorporated in a purely majority democracy governance structure (Maciejewski, 2002). Based on this understanding, both Canada and Australia had their cultures from the English speakers as well as French, and other native language speakers. Canada was the first between the two to formulate the multicultural society legislation in 1971 (Gunew, 1993). Through these provisions, the various societal groups were supposed to embrace a new shared culture and practice to represent the Canadian culture and the nation as a whole. Consequently, it sought to eliminate the often conflicts and differences between the British, French and other immigrant cultures in the nation, and instead create a shared Canadian national values and practices (Castles, 1995). This trend was later adopted by Australia in 1973, when it developed a similar legislation to acquire the multicultural society status. On its part, the Australian legislation sought to develop a shared culture, especially revolving around the aboriginal cultural practices, which was perceived as an increasingly unique and likely to project a different and unique Australian culture to the global society (Hoosain & Salili, 2001). Thus, an evaluation of the development of the multicultural societies in both Canada and Australia represents a similarity and a shared legislation on culture. National Symbols Legislation A national symbol is a sign and representation of entity that demonstrates a nation or a State in the nation as a single entity with shared values, beliefs, governance and social orientations. In this regard, there is a wide range of national symbols legislations that are aimed at promoting a national culture and beliefs (Geisler, 2005). One of the common cultural based national symbols is the national anthem and national days. On one hand, both Canada and Australia developed legislations for the development and establishment of national anthems, to serve as a union and representation of the nations’ values and beliefs. Consequently, in 1980, Canada passed its legislation on the development of a national anthem referred to as the O’Canada (Government of Canada, 2015). The national anthem, although facing a number of challenges has united the Canadian society into a shared belief and symbol of national unity. Among the raised concerns about the use of the O’Canada as the national anthem was the 1990 incidence, where Toronto State argued against the use of ‘native Land’ as offensive to the immigrants (Otis, 2015). However, besides the challenges, the legislation on the use of the national anthem remains in Canada serving as a key legislation to the actualisation of the recognition of a multicultural society. The legislation approach was replicated in Australia in 1984, when the nation authorised and passed the legislation on the use of the ‘Advance Australia Fair’ as its national anthem (Australia Government, 2015). In addition, Australia established an additional regulation on its national symbols through celebrating the Australian National Day celebrated on January 26th. The day represents the day in 1788, which the fist immigrant criminals sailed to Australia (Australian Day, 2015). Similarly, Canada has a Canadian National day celebrated July 1st, to celebrate the signing of the Canadian confederation 1867, leading to the formation of Canada as a nation (Hackney, 2009). Therefore, the above analysis illustrates that both Canada and Australia share the multicultural governance legislations through their respective national days and national anthems. Cultural Legislations Differences between Canada and Australia Despite the fact that Both Canada and Australia have a shared cultural and political background, in their allegiance to the Queen and the Commonwealth values, both nations have their diversity in cultural management. In this regard, the nations have developed different legislations and governance approaches to management in multicultural societies, as a means of increasing the respective policies and legislations effectiveness and sustainability in the long run period. This essay section develops a critical evaluation and analysis of the various multicultural legislation differences, and the reasons for the legislations diversities between Australia and Canada. The Australian Creative Nation Policy Legislations The Australian creative nation cultural policy funded and developed by the Federal government was initiated in 1994 and effected in 2013 as the Australian cultural policy document. The document developed by the then Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating developed a new approach to multicultural management and governance in the Australian society (Croggon, 2013). One of the unique features and principles developed in the new culture policy document was the recognition of a broader cultural base and institutions. Traditionally, the Australian cultural institutions were classified as the theatres and the museums in the nation. However, the policy document description and definition of culture extended to include other forms of institutions supporting culture in the society. As such, the nation included other forms of media such as films, radios and TV as a part of the Australian cultural institutions. This development was unique from the Canadian cultural institutions (Hawkings, 2014). On its part, the Canadian National centres Act 1966, recognised the arts centres and museums as the main cultural institutions in the Canadian society. Therefore, this variance in legislation indicated the wide cultural policies and legislation differences between Canada and Australia. The divergence in the recognitions of cultural institutions in Canada and Australia is based on the role of the media in both nations. On one hand, the Canadian media are mainly State owned. Thus, its funding is mainly by the government and thus cannot be showcased as a cultural institution. On the contrary, the Australian media are mainly privately owned, with a majority of the films and radio stations showcasing and broadcasting based on the different ethnic and cultural orientations in the Australian society (Hawkings, 2014). Thus, the radio stations, representing the different Australian cultures, as well as a majority of the films that demonstrate the different cultural values and beliefs serve as Australian cultural institutions. The development of the creative nation policy regulations on cultural institutions has enabled Australian to advance its multicultural society analogy and allow for the cooperation between the federal government and the public. A second key legislation under the creative nation cultural policy is under the management of the cultural institutions. In this regard, the policy provides a regulation through which the arts and culture institutions could be managed and governed through the Australian Council. The council is the overall Australian body mandated with the management and governance of the arts and cultural institutions through the evaluation and offering the required grants in the market. In order to ensure the alignment of the council board composition with the arts and cultural needs of the 21st century. This was effected through the establishment of the Australian Council bill 2013 (ABC, 2013). The bill aimed and targeted at the development and establishment of a new board composition through which the board members’ selection was changed to be evaluated and based on the technical skills and qualification needs in the society. Moreover, the Australia Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 was developed as a means of developing and establishing a new grant scheme in the Australian society. The development of these regulations and legislations was aimed at developing a new arts and culture grand allocation scheme in the Australian society (ABC, 2013). This emerged due to the rising concerns and criticisms from lobby groups on the rising level of professionalism decline and increased corruption and public funds embezzlement in the arts and culture institutions support. Moreover, the new regulation aimed at developing a new scope through which the beneficiary institutions of such grants would be expanded to include film and radio organisations in the society (Dwyer, 2010). This cultural legislation was different from the Canadian funds allocation and grants offering regulations. On its part, the Canadian government faced the rising concern for a multicultural balance for the respective cultures in the society. In this regard, the Canadian culture regulations and management was placed under the national arts centre and the Film board of Canada. In this case, rather than adopting a shared cultural governing council such as in Australia, the Canadian media, cultural attributes are governed, supported and rewarded by the Film Board of Canada (NFBC, 2015). This approach has been uniquely relevant and rational to the Canadian society in that it ensures that although a majority of the cultural institutions and agencies are State owned, there is the separation of powers and reduced funds misappropriation in the respective organs. This virtue creates the unique difference between Canada and Australia as the Australian cultural institutions, are mainly public owned, with minimal control and governance influence from the government. Thus, the difference in the cultural institutions between Australia and Canada is explained as the driving force and justification for the cultural legislations differences and the diversity of the subsequent Acts in the respective nations (Kenyon, 2007). Based on the above analysis, the essay evaluation establishes that the Australian creative nation cultural policy 2013 is a clear indication of the unique cultural legislations that the Australian society has adopted, different and diverse from other nations such as Canada. Therefore, the policy and its subsequent regulations are the main cultural management and governance legislations variance from Canada. Canadian Heritage and Cultural Legislations One of the fundamentally unique cultural legislations in Canada was the Department of Canadian Heritage Act 1995. The Act placed the functions and responsibilities of the arts and culture aspects in Canada under the Heritage department minister. In this regard, the minister was entitled and empowered to adjudicate in the development of multicultural legislations in the future as well as the development of sports and other national symbols (Timothy, 2011). The development of this legislation was based on the need to overcome the existing national symbol conflicts. Unlike the Australian national anthem that was widely accepted in the nation, the Canadian national anthem, the O’Canada faced stiff resistance and criticism across the nation. This emerged from the immigrants in Toronto, to feminist politicians who perceived the use of the 'sons’ phrase as gender insensitive. Therefore, these resistance initiatives as well as others on other national symbols such as the national Canadian day on 1st July led to the need to develop a resolution framework (Levine, 2014). In this context, the Canadian government was faced with the need to develop and establish a framework through which to resolve and develop new cultural legislations. This market the development of the Heritage department and the parliament awarding the minister enough powers to influence the future national cultural legislations. An additional unique multicultural legislation in Canada was the enactment of the Historic sites and monuments Act 1985. The act was formulated shortly after the multicultural society status acquisition in Canada in 1971. The Act formulation market a turning point for the Canada cultural legislation. Through the Act, a board was established mandated with the role of identifying and maintaining cultural historic and monuments in the society (Justice Laws, 2015). In this regard, the process included the development and establishment of a cross cultural approach to identifying and maintaining monuments of significance to the key cultural groups in Canada. The establishment of the legislation was both unique to Canada and important as either of the dominant two cultural groups in the society had their monuments and cultural heritage (Megyery, 1991). Thus, the board, with a multicultural composition, enabled the identification and maintenance of those cites considered the phase of the integrated Canadian culture, an approach which played a significant role in the development and growth of a national identity value in Canada. The above analysis presents critical evidence that although Canada has shared cultural legislations with Australia, its unique cultural needs and composition has influenced the development of unique legislations is evidenced in the analysis. Conclusion In summary, this essay offers a critical evaluation of the cultural policies legislations in both Canada and Australia. In this regard, the essay develops a special focus on the shared legislations as well as the diverse legislations, offering potential reasons for such diversification in legislations. Moreover, it discusses on how the diversity in legislations enables both Canada and Australia meets their national policy goals and objectives respectively. On one hand, a policy legislations evaluation establishes that both nations have a similarity in the adoption of the multicultural society Act, where Canada enacted it in 1971 and Australia shortly after in 1973. This implies that legally both nations recognised their society, cultural diversity and the need to formulate subsequent legislations that uphold, respect and represent the cultural diversity. Moreover, both have shared legislations in the development of multicultural national symbols such the respective nations’ anthems and national days respectively. Nevertheless, the analysis establishes that the enactment of the Creative Nation cultural policy 2013 in Australia, there as the development of the legislation on the expansion of the Australian cultural institutions as well as the Australian council bill 2013, that were different from those applied in Canada. Similarly, the Canadian government developed unique cultural legislations such as the department of heritage ACT 1995 among others which addressed the national symbols resistance challenge unique to Canada. Thus, the essay concludes that although a standardisation of cultural legislations is relevant, the unique national issues and cultural orientations validate cultural legislations variance among nations. References Australia Government, (2015). Australian National Anthem, Author. Retrieved from < https://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/anthem.cfm> Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (2013). Senate passes Australia Council Bill 2013, Author. Retrieved from < http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3790287.htm> Australian Day, (2015). Australian Day. Author. Retrieved from < http://qld.australiaday.org.au/whats-on/> Castles, S. (1995). How nation‐states respond to immigration and ethnic diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 21(3), 293-308. Croggon, A., (2013). Is there still hope for the National Cultural Policy? Arts. Retrieved from < http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3724886.htm> Dwyer, T. (2010). Media convergence. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open University Press Geisler, M. E. (2005). National symbols, fractured identities: Contesting the national narrative. Middlebury, Vt: Middlebury College Press. Government of Canada, (2015). The National Anthem. Heritage Department. Retrieved from < http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1359402373291/1359402467746> Gunew, S. (1993). Multicultural Multiplicities: US, Canada, Australia. Meanjin, 52(3), 447. Hackney, B. A. (2009). Independence days. New York: Chelsea House. Hawkings, R., (2014). Paul Keating’s Creative Nation: a policy document that changed us, The Conversation. Retrieved from < http://theconversation.com/paul-keatings-creative-nation-a-policy-document-that-changed-us-33537> Hoosain, R., & Salili, F. (2001). Multicultural education: Issues, policies, and practices. Greenwich, Conn: Information Age Publishers Justice Laws, (2015) Historic Sites and Monuments Act (R.S.C., 1985), Government of Canada. Retrieved from < http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-4/> Kenyon, A. T. (2007). TV futures: Digital television policy in Australia. Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Press. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, D., (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357-378 Levine, A., (2013). Allan Levine: The evolution of July 1, National Post. Retrieved from < http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/allan-levine-the-evolution-of-july-1> Maciejewski, W. (2002). The Baltic Sea region - cultures, politics, societies. Poznań: Ad Rem. Megyery, K. (1991). Ethno-cultural groups and visible minorities in Canadian politics: The question of access. Toronto: Dundurn Press Mwakikagile, G. (2010). Belize and its people: Life in a multicultural society. Dar es Salaam: New Africa Press. N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357-378. National Film Board of Canada, (2015). Mission Highlights, Author. Retrieved from < http://onf-nfb.gc.ca/en/about-the-nfb/organization/mandate/> Otis, D. (2015). O Canada: an anthem for half of us? , City Hall. Retrieved From < http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/01/15/o-canada-an-anthem-for-half-of-us.html> Pieterse, J. N. (2009). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. The British Monarchy, (2015). Commonwealth Members, Author. Retrieved from < http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/commonwealthmembers/membersofthecommonwealth.aspx> Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Read More