Australia is a multicultural society – with a rich diversity of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. It is also a country with concerning reports of racism and racial vilification, which has affected immigrants, refugees, and people from diasporic communities.
For example, the spike of anti-Asian hate-crimes during the inception of COVID-19
disproportionately affected Asian women with disability. Moreover, reports of violence and abuse towards women from immigrant and refugee communities underscore the need for espousing intersectionality, multiculturalism, and anti-racist approaches to policy design.
A crucial part of an anti-racist approach to policy design is examining the importance of inclusive language in data collection – including the predominant use of the term “Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse” (‘CALD’) within government policy-making and the unintended impacts of solely using this term.
Introduced by government policy-makers in 1999 to replace NESB (“non-English speaking background”) to describe multiethnic communities from non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, CALD – as an acronym and demographic term – is frequently utilised in the Australian Government’s policy-making instruments, including the Census and the state/territory governments’ public health ordinances.
However, Australia has in recent years witnessed public concern regarding the limitations of CALD as a term and acronym. For example, the peak body, Diversity Council of Australia (‘DCA’), had recommended substituting CALD for CARM – “Culturally and Racially Marginalised” – in order to increase racial literacy and awareness of racism within Australia.
Moreover, the Victorian Government has begun utilising “CARM” interchangeably with “CALD”, out of respect for more intersectional and inclusive language. Similarly, many Departments of the Federal Government have also begun to utilise both “CARM” and “CALD” in unison, as opposed to relying solely upon “CALD”.