Academic literature on the topic 'Australian Heritage Commission'

The National Liturgical Architecture and Art Council (NLAAC) is an advisory body to the Bishops’ Commission for Liturgy of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, mandated to provide advice in the areas of liturgical architecture, art and heritage. The Council has prepared guidelines for use throughout the Catholic Church in Australia. The most recent of these documents, Fit for Sacred Use: Stewardship and Renewal of Places of Worship (2018) focusses on existing church buildings with particular reference to cultural heritage, and is the subject of this paper. Vatican II sought the full and active liturgical participation of all the people and so existing churches were reordered to foster inclusion. It is timely to consider questions around what constitutes our heritage and how it is valued. Fit for Sacred Use sets out the liturgical and heritage principles which are fundamental to conserving, renovating and reordering a church building. Its holistic approach considers how we renew our churches while honouring our heritage.

The Australian "Committing to Place" Research Project investigates the potential of outreach activities and educational programmes to increase community commitment to natural resource management. New communication technologies offer tools for enhancing participation — in terms of a deeper commitment from communities and participation of a wider range of groups — through their interactive qualities and capacity to link people in different places. The research project evaluates the piloting, by the National Museum of Australia, of several innovative outreach activities which use information and communication technologies specifically for community capacity building and developing platforms for change. With an understanding of evaluation as research to inform decision-making at all phases of project design, the Research Team is evaluating: (1) the effectiveness of each outreach activity in meeting stakeholder objectives, including community participants; (2) the potential each activity has to increase participation in the activity and other activities associated with cultural heritage or natural resources; and (3) progress towards "the higher purpose", that is, the potential for such activities to affect natural resource management outcomes in the long run. The research project is an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant involving the University of Tasmania, the National Museum of Australia, and the Murray–Darling Basin Commission.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore behavioural factors which are perceived to influence corrupt action in the Australian construction industry. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draw on Rabl and Kühlmann’s Model of a corrupt action and the results of face-to-face interviews with 23 people working in the Australian construction industry. Findings – The results suggest that corruption is ambiguously defined yet perceived to be very common and primarily associated with personal gain rather than breaking the law. The main forms of corruption were identified as kickbacks, fraud and bribery and this behaviour is perceived to be driven by high goal feasibility, by conducive attitudes and supportive subjective norms and by high perceived behavioural control over being caught. Research limitations/implications – The research is based on a relatively small sample of 23 respondents and the use of snowball sampling may have meant that the respondents would tend to present a particular view of the industry. It is also important to point out that this research took place within a highly politicised environment coinciding the with launch of the third Royal Commission into corruption in the construction industry and is based on the respondent’s perceptions of corruption rather than incontrovertible evidence of corruption in practice. Nevertheless, given the care the authors took to avoid these biases, it does provide a useful window in the incidence and types of corruption in construction and the behavioural factors that might influence it. Practical implications – In terms of tackling corruption, it is recommended that greater attention be given to exploring the culture of the industry which appears to normalise corrupt behaviour and to the hidden informal “institutions” which appear to be undermining the many formal policies and procedures which have been put in place to tackle corruption in the construction industry. Social implications – The global construction industry has been identified by Transparency International as the most bribery-prone of 19 industries it rated. The cost is huge with scarce resources being diverted from much needed urban regeneration, community concerns about development being ignored, individual human rights being abused, productivity and efficiency being compromised and important environments, cultures and heritage being destroyed. In Australia, concerns about corruption in the construction industry have led to an unprecedented three Royal Commissions which have argued that there is a culture which encourages, accepts and rewards this behaviour. Originality/value – By using Rabl and Kühlmann’s Theory of a corrupt action this paper throws new light on how corruption is defined by members of the construction industry. The findings suggest that while formal technical and procedural solutions to corruption are important in addressing corruption they are likely to be undermined by strong cultures and informal institutions which dictate the “rules of the game” on the ground. There is a clear need to better understand how these informal institutions work to constrain formal rules devised to bring about reform.

1. Alivizatou, M. (2019). Digital intangible heritage: Inventories, virtual learning and participation. Heritage & Society, 12(2–3), 116–135. 2. Billett, S. (2009). Conceptualizing learning experiences: Contributions and mediations of the social, personal, and brute. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 32–47. 3. Bonilla, C. M. (2014). Racial Counternarratives and L atina Epistemologies in Relational Organizing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 45(4), 391–408. 4. Britain, T. (2007). How We Are: Photographing Britain. 5. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703 6. Budge, K. (2017). Objects in focus: Museum visitors and Instagram. Curator: The Museum Journal, 60(1), 67–85. 7. Budge, K., & Burness, A. (2018). Museum objects and Instagram: agency and communication in digital engagement. Continuum, 32(2), 137–150. 8. Callanan, M. A., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers’ questions and parents’ explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7(2), 213–233. 9. Callanan, M., Cervantes, C., & Loomis, M. (2011). Informal learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 646–655. 10. Cameron, F. (2003). Digital Futures I: Museum collections, digital technologies, and the cultural construction of knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal, 46(3), 325–340. 11. Cokley, J., Gilbert, L., Jovic, L., & Hanrick, P. (2016). Growth of ‘Long Tail’in Australian journalism supports new engaging approach to audiences. Continuum, 30(1), 58–74. 12. Cole, M., & Consortium, D. L. (2006). The fifth dimension: An after-school program built on diversity. Russell Sage Foundation. 13. European Commission. (2015). i-Treasures: intangible cultural heritage of the past available through advanced modern technologies. 14. Fitts, S., & McClure, G. (2015). Building Social Capital in Hightown: The Role of Confianza in L atina Immigrants’ Social Networks in the New South. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46(3), 295–311. 15. Francesca, P. (2017). Final Report on User Requirements: Identification and Analysis. 16. Gade, R. (2009). Event Culture - The Museum and Its Staging (Kopenhagen, 6-7 Nov 09). 17. Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474. 18. Gillard, P. (2002). Cruising through history wired. Museums and the Web 2002. 19. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children (Vol. 618). Indiana University Press. 20. Hamma, K. (2004). The role of museums in online teaching, learning, and research. First Monday. 21. Henchman, M. (2000). Bringing the object to the viewer: Multimedia techniques for the scientific study of art. 22. Herrgott, C. (2016). Cantu in paghjella: Patrimoine Culturel Immatériel et nouvelles technologies dans le projet I-Treasures. Port Acadie: Revue Interdisciplinaire En Études Acadiennes/Port Acadie: An Interdisciplinary Review in Acadian Studies, 30, 91–113. 23. Howell, R., & Chilcott, M. (2013). A sense of place: re-purposing and impacting historical research evidence through digital heritage and interpretation practice. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 8, 165–177. 24. King, L., Stark, J. F., & Cooke, P. (2016). Experiencing the digital world: The cultural value of digital engagement with heritage. Heritage & Society, 9(1), 76–101. 25. Lomb, N. (2009). Dip circle used to study the earth’s magnetic field at Parramatta Observatory. 26. Majors, Y. J. (2015). Shoptalk: Lessons in teaching from an African American hair salon. Teachers College Press. 27. Marty, P. F. (2008). Museum websites and museum visitors: digital museum resources and their use. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), 81–99. 28. Moqtaderi, H. (2019). Citizen curators: Crowdsourcing to bridge the academic/public divide. University Museums and Collections Journal, 11(2), 204–210. 29. Müller, K. (2013). Museums and virtuality. In Museums in a digital age (pp. 295–305). Routledge. 30. Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. 31. O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955. 32. O’Neill, R. (2017). The Rise of the Citizen Curator: Participation as Curation on the Web. University of Hull. 33. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (2000). The lore and language of schoolchildren. New York Review of Books. 34. Pallud, J. (2017). Impact of interactive technologies on stimulating learning experiences in a museum. Information & Management, 54(4), 465–478. 35. Pallud, J., & Straub, D. W. (2014). Effective website design for experience-influenced environments: The case of high culture museums. Information & Management, 51(3), 359–373. 36. Pozzi, F. (2017). Final Report on User Requirements: Identification and Analysis. Unpublished I-Treasures Project Report. 37. Proctor, N. (2010). Digital: Museum as platform, curator as champion, in the age of social media. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(1), 35. 38. Rogoff, B., Callanan, M., Gutiérrez, K. D., & Erickson, F. (2016). The organization of informal learning. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 356–401. 39. Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field. 40. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive Consequences of Formal and Informal Education: New accommodations are needed between school-based learning and learning experiences of everyday life. Science, 182(4112), 553–559. 41. Song, M., Elias, T., Martinovic, I., Mueller-Wittig, W., & Chan, T. K. Y. (2004). Digital heritage application as an edutainment tool. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, 163–167. 42. Taheri, B., Jafari, A., & O’Gorman, K. (2014). Keeping your audience: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism Management, 42, 321–329. 43. Tan, B.-K., & Rahaman, H. (2009). Virtual heritage: Reality and criticism. 44. Tarlowski, A. (2006). If it’s an animal it has axons: Experience and culture in preschool children’s reasoning about animates. Cognitive Development, 21(3), 249–265. 45. Tate. (2007). How We Are Now at Tate Britain Museum. 46. Taylor, J., & Gibson, L. K. (2017). Digitisation, digital interaction and social media: embedded barriers to democratic heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(5), 408–420. 47. UNESCO. (2011). What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? 48. Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. MIT press. 49. Wenger-Trayner, E., Wenger-Trayner, B., & W.-T. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. 50. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press. 51. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.

This article offers recent insights on contested heritage from Canada and Malta. These contrasting geographical extremes span a range of heritage dissonances but share a common historical identity as successor states to the British Empire, entailing familiar postcolonial heritage equivocations. Dissonances between colonial and indigenous heritage meanings are discussed. The principal focus of the paper is the Empire at war, as an issue of heritage management in Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and in Malta; comparative insights are generated with resonance for other imperial successor states such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. In Ottawa the National Capital Commission is engaged in a delicate management of heritage evolution from the imperial past to the multicultural present, involving adjustment and diversification of heritage meanings in which the indigenous peoples and Canada's wartime/military history figure prominently. Malta's time-depth generates an embarrassment of heritage resources, necessitating choices as it moves from 'blue' seacoast to 'grey' heritage tourism; while earlier eras are favoured, the British imperial and military heritage is inescapable, especially the heroic shared defence of 1940-3, generating management issues over recency, postcoloniality, the naval legacy and the problem of marketing to the former enemy populations. Questions of whose heritage, using which resources of what period, for whose benefit and how managed, elicit a different range of answers in the two cases: British colonial heritage is too diverse to be value-generalised, and there is no single, immutable colonial template for postcolonial identity. However, the particular legacy of the Empire at war is notably formative in the evolution of succeeding national identities.

Esso recently commissioned (October 2017) a new 350-mm 187-km-long pipeline for carrying crude and condensate from Esso’s Longford Plant (Longford) in Gippsland Victoria, along an existing easement to the Long Island Point facility (LIP) at Hastings, Victoria. This pipeline replaces an existing 700-mm pipeline that was approaching the end of its operational life. Through continued delivery of crude and condensate, this pipeline also ensures that the natural gas which is produced along with these liquids continues to flow to Australian households and businesses. The project included pig launching and receiving facilities at Longford and LIP terminals, 10 main-line valve stations as well as fibre-optic cable for control, leak detection and communications purposes. Early engagement of its contractor partners played a key role in the successful execution of the project. Today’s landscape along the pipeline route significantly differs from that when the original pipeline was installed. Individual needs of the landowners affected by the construction were carefully considered. Significant measures were taken to minimise any impact to the unique flora and fauna of the region. Sensitivities around cultural heritage locations were taken into account while finalising the construction methods. Construction of the pipeline occurred in two summer phases (2015–2016 and 2016–2017) to make efficient use of dry weather and to minimise disturbance to landowners and the environment. The project was completed within budget and ahead of schedule.

In August 1968, conservative National Party leader Joh Bjelke-Petersen became Premier of the state of Queensland. He referred to conservationists as these 'subversives, these friends of the dirt'. A generation later, few if any Australian politicians would have publicly attacked the environment and its supporters for fear of electoral damage. After years of major environmental battles which on occasion determined the fate of some governments, the environment had crashed through into mainstream politics. Natural and cultural heritage was firmly on local, state and federal political agendas. Heritage in Australia was also, by the 1990s, a substantial, multifaceted industry. Cultural and eco tourism generated a significant proportion of the country's gross domestic product. Along side and partially in response to industry, a heritage bureaucracy had developed. The corporatisation of heritage saw the rise in the 1980s and 1990s of a new generation of heritage professionals who attempted with varying degrees of success to place heritage assessment on a quasi-scientific footing. Perhaps their greatest achievement, in terms of cultural heritage, was gaining recognition in the 1990s for the vital importance of intangible heritage. Intangible heritage, or social value, inscribes objects and sites that cannot speak for themselves with cultural and social meanings. Since the 1980s, some more radical practitioners had been working to counteract the dominance of tangible remains of the past in determining cultural significance. This victory over empiricism, however, was in some respects to prove pyrrhic. Heritage conservation, as with some other heritage practices, was by the turn of the twenty-first century institutionally confined in its ability to represent conflict. This article charts the incorporation and corralling of heritage work at the federal level in Australia through a case study of the rise and fall of the Australian Heritage Commission.

Purpose Australia appears to be encountering a crisis in the protection of certain heritage places, despite its strong reputation in heritage conservation built up since the 1970s. Consequently, this paper examines changes to national cultural heritage management policy over the last few decades to understand more about this crisis. Design/methodology/approach Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage) was selected as the key focus. This paper applies a cultural heritage management framework tested first in Hong Kong to measure Australian paradigm change over 45 years. Findings It found the 1990s shift away from the provision of independent technical advice on national heritage policy has had a major impact. This shift is based on a change in ethos away from the earlier Whitlam/National Estate broader vision of heritage responsibilities towards a narrower more conservative one at the national level. Also, it found that studies and policymaking should allow for Indigenous voices. More Indigenous input in heritage policy formulation at all levels of government would further decolonise Indigenous heritage governance to deal justly with Indigenous Australians and their heritage. Research limitations/implications Resources did not allow for comparative studies of the non-Indigenous (historic) and natural heritage as part of the current study. Practical implications The study also included a consultation paper and an online conference presentation that have raised questions about the efficacy of current national policy on Indigenous places, on which a national conversation is urgently needed. The recent review of the National Heritage Strategy by the Australian Commonwealth Government based some of its proposed options on those listed in the consultation paper to initiate this conversation in a limited way. Social implications One finding is that attention to heritage policy and protection must be ongoing at all levels of government and inclusive of First People's human rights, particularly those concerning their heritage. In regard to Australia, most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents in this study would like to see targeted funding return for more than just iconic Indigenous places and for the creation of a more independent heritage body that allows them more self-determination in the care of their heritage. Originality/value The paper's value is that it investigates the Australian Heritage Commission's impact in the development of Australian cultural heritage management and associated national policy. Also, it provides insights for other postcolonial or New World settler societies dealing with the same issues or any decision-makers considering establishing a national independent body to oversee heritage protection and policymaking.

Introduction For migrants, the dream of a better life is often expressed by the metaphor of the journey (Papastergiadis 31). Propelled by a variety of forces and choices, migrant life narratives tend to revolve around movement from one place to another, from a homeland associated with cultural and spiritual origins to a hostland which offers new opportunities and possibilities. In many cases, however, their dreams of migrants are deferred; migrants endure hardships and make sacrifices in the hope of a better life for their children. Many studies have explored the social and economic outcomes of the “second” generation – the children of migrants born and raised in the new country. In Australia studies have found, despite some notable exceptions (Betts and Healy; Inglis), that the children of migrants have achieved the economic and social integration their parents dreamed of (Khoo, McDonald, Giorgas, and Birrell). At the same time, however, research has found that the second generation face new challenges, including the negative impact of ethnic and racial discrimination (Dunn, Blair, Bliuc, and Kamp; Jakubowicz, Collins, Reid, and Chafic), the experience of split identities and loyalties (Butcher and Thomas) and a complicated sense of “home” and belonging (Fabiansson; Mason; Collins and Read). In this articles, we explore what the dream of a better life means for second generation migrants, and how that dream might reshape Australia’s multicultural identity. A focus on this generation’s imaginings, visions and hopes for the future is important, we argue, because its distinctive experience, differing from that of other sections of the Australian community in some important ways, needs to be recognised as the nation’s multicultural identity is refashioned in changing circumstances. Unlike their parents, the second generation was born into what is now one of the most diverse countries in the world, with over a quarter (26%) of the population born overseas and a further 23% having at least one parent born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics). Unlike their parents, they have come of age in the era of digitally-enabled international communication that has transformed the ways in which people connect. This cohort has a distinctive relationship to the national imaginary. The idea of “multicultural Australia” that was part of the country’s adoption of a multicultural policy framework in the early 1970s was based on a narrative of “old” (white Anglo) Australians “welcoming” (or “tolerating”) “new” (immigrant) Australians (Ang and Stratton; Hage). In this narrative, the second generation, who are Australian born but not “old” Australians and of “migrant background” but not “new” Australians, are largely invisible, setting them apart from both their migrant parents and other, overseas born young Australians of diverse backgrounds, with whom they are often grouped (Collins, Reid, and Fabiansson; Ang, Brand, Noble, and Sternberg; Collins, Reid, and Fabiansson; Harris).In what follows, we aim to contribute to calls for a rethinking of Australian national identity and “culture of interaction” to better reflect the experiences of all citizens (Levey; Collins, Reid, and Fabiansson) by focusing on the experiences of the second generation. Taking our cue from Geoffrey Levey, we argue that “it is not the business of government or politicians to complete the definition of what it means to be Australian” and that we should instead look to a sense of national identity that emerges organically from “mundane daily social interaction” (Levey). To this end, we adopt an “everyday multiculturalism” perspective (Wise and Velayutham), “view[ing] situations of co-existence ... as a concrete, specific context of action, in which difference comes across as a constraint ... and as a resource” (Semi, Colombo, Comozzi, and Frisina 67). We see our focus on the second generation as complementary to existing studies that have examined experiences of young Australians of diverse backgrounds through an everyday multiculturalism prism without distinguishing between newly arrived young people and those born in Australia (Ang, Brand, Noble, and Sternberg; Collins, Reid, and Fabiansson; Harris). We emphasise, however, after Mansouri and Johns, that the second generation’s distinctive cultural and socio-structural challenges and needs – including their distinctive relationship to the idea of “multicultural Australia” – deserve special attention. Like Christina Schachtner, we are cognisant that “faced with the task of giving meaning and direction to their lives, the next generation is increasingly confronted with a need to reconsider the revered values of the present and the past and to reorientate themselves while establishing new meanings” (233; emphasis ours). Like her, we recognise that in the contemporary era, young adults often use digital communicative spaces for the purpose of giving meaning to their lives in the circumstances in which they find themselves (Schachtner 233). Above all, we concur with Hopkins and Dolic when they state that “understanding the processes that inform the creation and maintenance of ... ethnic minority and Australian mainstream identities amongst second-generation young people is critical if these young people are to feel included and recognised, whilst avoiding the alienation and social exclusion that has had such ugly results in other parts of the world (153).In part one, we draw on initial findings from a collaborative empirical study between Swinburne University and the Victorian Multicultural Commission to outline some of the paradoxes and contradictions encountered by a particular – well-educated (currently or recently enrolled at university) and creative (seeking jobs in the media and cultural industries) – segment of the second generation in their attempts to imagine themselves within the frame of “multicultural Australia” (3 focus groups, of 60-90 minutes duration, involving 7-10 participants were conducted over 2018 and 2019). These include feeling more Australian than their parents while not always being seen as “really” Australian by the broader community; embracing diversity but struggling to find a language in which to adequately express it; and acknowledging the progress being made in representing diversity in the mainstream media while not seeing their stories and those of their parents represented there.In part two, we outline future research directions that look to a range of cultural texts and mediated forms of social interactions across popular culture and media in search of new conversations about personal and national identity that could feed into a renewal of a more inclusive understanding of Australian identity.Living and Talking DiversityOur conversations with second generation young Australians confirmed many of the paradoxes and contradictions experienced by young people of diverse backgrounds in the constant traversing of their parents’ and Australian culture captured in previous research (Ang, Brand, Noble, and Sternberg; Harris). Emblematic of these paradoxes are the complicated ways they relate to “Australian identity,” notably expressed in the tension felt between identifying as “Australian” when overseas and with their parent’s heritage when in Australia. An omnipresent reminder of their provisional status as “Aussies” is questions such as “well I know you’re Australian but what are you really?” As one participant put it: “I identify as Australian, I’m proud of my Australian identity. But in Australia I’m Turkish and that’s just because when someone asks I’m not gonna say ‘oh I’m Australian’ ... I used to live in the UK and if someone asked me there, I was Australian. If someone asks me here, I’m Turkish. So that’s how it is. Turkish, born in Australia”The second generation young people in our study responded to these ambiguities in different ways. Some applied hyphenated labels to themselves, while others felt that identification with the nation was largely irrelevant, documented in existing research (Collins, Reid, and Fabiansson; Harris). As one of our participants put it, “I just personally don’t find national identity to be that important or relevant – it’s just another detail about me – I [don’t] think it should affect anything else.” The study also found that our participants had difficulty in finding specific terms to express their identities. For some, trying to describe their identities was “really confusing,” and their thinking changed from day to day. For others, the reason it was hard to express their identities was that the very substance of mundane, daily life “feels very default”. This was the case when many of our participants reported their lived experiences of diversity, whether related to culinary and sport experiences, or simply social interactions with “the people I talk to” and daily train trips where “everyone [of different ethnicities] just rides the train together and doesn’t think twice about it”. As one young person put it, “the default is going around the corner for dinner and having Mongolian beef and pho”. We found that a factor feeding into the ambivalence of articulating Australian identity is the influence – constraining and enabling – of prevailing idioms of identity and difference. Several instances were uncovered in which widely circulating and highly politicised discourses of identity had the effect of shutting down conversation. In particular, the issue of what was “politically correct” language was a touchstone for much of the discussion among the young people in our study. This concern with “appropriate language” created some hesitancy and confusion, as when one person was trying to describe white Australians: “obviously you know Australia’s still a – how do you, you know, I guess I don’t know how to – the appropriate, you know PC language but Australia’s a white country if that makes sense you know”. Other participants were reluctant to talk about cultural groups and their shared characteristics at all, seeing such statements as potentially racist. In contrast to this feeling of restricted discourse, we found many examples of our participants playing and repurposing received vocabularies. As reported in other research, the young people used ideas about origin, race and ethnicity in loose and shifting ways (Back; Butcher). In some cases, in contrast to fears of “racist” connotations of identifying individuals by their cultural background, the language of labels and shorthand descriptors was used as a lingua franca for playful, albeit not unproblematic, negotiations across cultural boundaries. One participant reported being called one of “The Turks” in classes at university. His response expressed the tensions embedded in this usage, finding it stereotyping but ultimately affectionate. As he expressed it, “it’s like, ‘I have a personality, guys.’ But that was okay, it was endearing, they were all with it”. Another finding highlighted more fraught issues that can be raised when existing identity categories are transposed from contexts strongly marked by historically specific circumstances into unrelated contexts. This was the case of a university classmate saying of another Turkish participant that he “was the black guy of the class because … [he] was the darkest”. The circulation of “borrowed” discourses – particularly, as in this case, from the USA – is notable in the digital era, and the broader implications of such usage among people who are not always aware of the connotations of a discourse that is deeply rooted in a particular history and culture, are yet to be fully examined (Lester). The study also shed some light on the struggles the young people in our study encountered in finding a language in which to describe their identities and relationship to “Australianness”. When asked if they thought others would consider them to be “Australian”, responses revealed a spectrum ranging from perceived rejection to an ill-defined and provisional inclusion. One person reported – despite having been born and lived in Australia all their life – that “I don’t think I would ever be called Australian from Australian people – from white Australian people”. Another thought that it was not possible to generalise about being considered Australians by the broader community, as “some do, some don’t”. Again, responses varied. While for some it was a source of unease, for others the distancing from “Australianness” was not experienced negatively, as in the case of the participant who said of being singled out as “different” from the Anglo-Celtic mainstream, “I actually don’t mind that … I’ve got something that a lot of white Australians males don’t have”.A connected finding was the continuing presence of, often subtle but clearly registered, racism. The second generation young people in the study were very conscious of the ways in which experiences of racism they encountered differed from – and represented an improvement on – that of their parents. Drawing an intergenerational contrast between the explicit racism their parents were often subjected to and their own experiences of what they frequently referred to as microaggressions, they mostly saw progress occurring on this front. Another sign of progress they observed was in relation to their own propensity to reject exclusionary thinking, as when they suggested that their parents’ generation are more likely to make “assumptions about culture” based on people’s “outward appearance” which they found problematic because “everyone’s everywhere”. While those cultural faux pas were judged as “well-meaning” and even justified by not “growing up in a culturally diverse setting”, they are at odds with young people’s own experiences and understanding of diversity.The final major finding to emerge from the study was the widespread view that mainstream media fails to represent their lives. Again, our participants acknowledged the progress that has been made over recent decades and applauded moves towards greater representation of non-Anglo-Celtic communities in mainstream free-to-air programming. But the vast majority reported that their experiences are not represented. The sentiment that “I’d love to see someone who looks like me on TV more – on a really basic level – I’d like to see someone who looks like my Dad” was shared by many. What remained missing – and motivated many of the young people in our study to embark on filmmaking careers – was content that reflected their local, place-based lifestyles and the intergenerational dynamics of migrated families that is the fabric of their lives. When asked if Australian media content reflected their experience, one participant put it bluntly: “if I felt like it did, I wouldn’t be actively trying to make documentaries and films about it”.Dreaming DiversityThe findings of the study confirmed earlier research highlighting the ambiguities encountered by second generation Australians who are demographically, emotionally and culturally marked by their parents’ experiences of migration even as they forge their post-migration futures. On the one hand, they reported an allegiance to the Australian nation and recognised that in many ways that they are more part of its fabric than their parents. On the other hand, they reported a number of situations in which they feel marginalised and not “really” Australian, as when they are asked “where are you really from” and when they do not see their stories represented in the mainstream media. In particular, the study highlighted the tensions involved in describing personal and Australian identity, revealing the struggle the second generation often experience in their attempts to express the complexity of their identifications and sense of belonging. As we see it, the lack of recognition of being “really” Australian felt by the young people in our study and their view that mainstream media does not sufficiently represent their experience are connected. Underlying both is a status quo in which the normative Australian is Anglo-Celtic. To help shift this prevailing view of the normative Australian, we endorse earlier calls for a research program centred on analyses of a range of cultural texts and mediated forms of social interactions in search of new conversations about Australian identity. Media, both public and commercial, have the potential to be key agents for community building and identity formation. From radio and television programs through to online discussion forums and social media, media have provided platforms for creating collective imagination and a sense of belonging, including in the context of migration in Australia (Sinclair and Cunningham; Johns; Ang, Brand, Noble, and Sternberg). By supplying symbolic resources through which cultural differences and identities are represented and circulated, they can offer up opportunities for societal reflection, scrutiny and self-interpretation. As a starting point, for example, three current popular media formats that depict or are produced by second-generation Australians lend themselves to such a multi-sited analysis. The first is internet forums in which second generation young people share their quotidian experiences of “bouncing between both cultures in our lives” (Wu and Yuan), often in humorous forms. As the popularity of Subtle Asian Traits and its offshoot Subtle Curry Traits have indicated, these sites tap into the hunger among the Asian diaspora for increased media visibility. The second is the work of comedians, including those who self-identify as of migrant descent. The politics of stereotyping and racial jokes and the difference between them has been a subject of considerable research, including into television comedy productions which are important because of their potential audience reach and ensuing post-viewing conversations (Zambon). The third is a new generation of television programs which are set in situations of diversity without being heralded as “about” diversity. A key case is the television drama series The Heights, first screened on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Australia in 2019, which explores the relationships between the residents of a social housing tower and the people who live in the rapidly gentrifying community that surrounds it in the melting pot of urban Australia. These examples represent a diverse range of cultural expressions – created informally and spontaneously (Subtle Asian Traits, Subtle Curry Traits), fashioned by individuals working in the entertainment industry (comedians), and produced professionally and broadcast on national TV networks (The Heights). What unites them is an engagement with the novel forms of belonging that postwar migration has produced (Papastergiadis 20) and an attempt to communicate and represent the lived experience of contemporary Australian diversity, including negotiated dreams and aspirations for the future. We propose a systematic analysis of the new languages of identity and difference that their efforts to represent the evolving patterns and circumstances of diversity in Australia are bringing forth. Conclusions To dream in the context of migration implies, more often than not, the prospect of a better material life in an adopted country. Instead, through the notion of “dreaming diversity”, we foreground the dreams, expectations and imaginations for the future of the Australian second generation which centre on carving out their cultural place in the nation.The empirical research we presented paints a picture of the second generation's paradoxical and contradictory experiences as they navigate the shifting landscape of Australia’s multicultural society. It gives a glimpse of the challenges and hopes they encounter as well as the direction of their attempts to negotiate their place within “Australian identity”. Finally, it highlights the need for a more expansive conversation and language in which that identity can be expressed. A language in which to talk – not just about the many cultures that make up the nation, but also to each other from within them – will be crucial to facilitate the deeper intercultural understanding and engagement many young people aspire to. Our ambition is not to codify a register of approved terms, and even less to formulate a new official discourse for use in multicultural policy documents. It is rather to register, crystalise and expand a discussion around difference and identity that is emerging from everyday interactions of Australians and foster a more committed conversation attuned to contemporary realities and communicative spaces where those interactions take place. In search of a richer vocabulary in which Australian identity might be reimagined, we have identified a research program that will explore emerging ways of talking about difference and identity across a range of cultural and media formats about or by the second generation. While arguing for the significance of the languages and idioms that are emerging in the spaces that young people inhabit, we recognise that, no less than other demographics, second-generation Australians are influenced by circulating narratives and categories in which (national) identity is discussed (Harris 15), including official conceptions and prevailing discourses of identity politics which are often encountered online and through popular culture. Our point is that the dreams, visions and imaginaries of second generation Australians, who will be among the key actors in fashioning Australia’s multicultural futures, are an important element of reimagining Australia’s multiculturalism even if those discourses may be partial, ambivalent or fragmented. We see this research program as building on and extending the tradition of sociological and cultural analyses of popular culture, media and cultural diversity and contributing to a more robust and systematic catalogue of multicultural narratives across different popular formats, genres, and production arrangements characteristic of the diversified media landscape. We have focused on the Australian “new second generation” (Zhou and Bankston), coming of age in the early 21st century, as a significant but under-researched group in the belief that their narratives of aspirations and dreams will be a crucial component of discursive innovations and practical programs for social change.ReferencesAustralian Bureau of Statistics. “The Way We Live Now.” 2017. 1 Mar. 2020 <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2024.0>.Ang, Ien, Jeffrey E. Brand, Greg Noble, and Jason Sternberg. Connecting Diversity: Paradoxes of Multicultural Australia. Artarmon: Special Broadcasting Service Corporation, 2006.Back, L., P. Cohen, and M. Keith. “Between Home and Belonging: Critical Ethnographies of Race, Place and Identity.” Finding the Way Home: Young People’s Stories of Gender, Ethnicity, Class and Places in Hamburg and London. Ed. N. Räthzel. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2008. 197–224.Betts, Katherine, and Ernest Healy. “Lebanese Muslims in Australia and Social Disadvantage.” People and Place 14.1 (2006): 24-42.Butcher, Melissa. “FOB Boys, VCs and Habibs: Using Language to Navigate Difference and Belonging in Culturally Diverse Sydney.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34.3 (2008): 371-387. DOI: 10.1080/13691830701880202. Butcher, Melissa, and Mandy Thomas. “Ingenious: Emerging Hybrid Youth Cultures in Western Sydney.” Global Youth? Hybrid Identities, Plural Worlds. Eds. Pam Nilan and Carles Feixa. London: Routledge, 2006.Collins, Jock, and Carol Reid. “Minority Youth, Crime, Conflict, and Belonging in Australia.” International Migration & Integration 10 (2009): 377–391. DOI: 10.1007/s12134-009-0112-1.Collins, Jock, Carol Reid, and Charlotte Fabiansson. “Identities, Aspirations and Belonging of Cosmopolitan Youth in Australia.” Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal 3.3 (2011): 92-107.Dunn, K.M., K. Blair, A-M. Bliuc, and A. Kamp. “Land and Housing as Crucibles of Racist Nationalism: Asian Australians’ Experiences.” Geographical Research 56.4 (2018): 465-478. DOI: 10.1111/1745-5871.12313.Fabiansson, Charlotte. “Belonging and Social Identity among Young People in Western Sydney, Australia.” International Migration & Integration 19 (2018): 351–366. DOI: 10.1007/s12134-018-0540-x.Hage, Ghassan. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Sydney: Pluto Press, 1998.Heights, The. Matchbox Pictures and For Pete’s Sake Productions, 2019.Harris, Anita. Young People and Everyday Multiculturalism. New York: Routledge, 2013.Hopkins, Liza, and Z. Dolic. “Second Generation Youth and the New Media Environment.” Youth Identity and Migration: Culture, Values and Social Connectedness. Ed. Fethi Mansouri. Altona: Common Ground, 2009. 153-164.Inglis, Christine. Inequality, Discrimination and Social Cohesion: Socio-Economic Mobility and Incorporation of Australian-Born Lebanese and Turkish Background Youth. Sydney: U of Sydney, 2010. Jakubowicz, Andrew, Jock Collins, Carol Reid, and Wafa Chafic. “Minority Youth and Social Transformation in Australia: Identities, Belonging and Cultural Capital.” Social Inclusion 2.2 (2014): 5-16.Johns, Amelia. “Muslim Young People Online: ‘Acts of Citizenship’ in Socially Networked Spaces.” Social Inclusion 2.2 (2014):71-82.Khoo, Siew-Ean, Peter McDonald, Dimi Giorgas, and Bob Birrell. Second Generation Australians. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Centre for Population Research and Research School of Social Sciences, and the Australian National University and Centre for Population and Urban Research, 2002.Levey, Geoffrey. “National Identity and Diversity: Back to First Principles.” Who We Are. Eds. Julianne Schultz and Peter Mares. Griffith Review 61 (2018).Mason, V. “Children of the ‘Idea of Palestine’: Negotiating Identity, Belonging and Home in the Palestinian Diaspora.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 28.3 (2007): 271-285.Papastergiadis, Nikos. The Turbulence of Migration: Globalization, Deterritorialization and Hybridity. Cambridge: Polity, 2000.Schachtner, Christina. “Transculturality in the Internet: Culture Flows and Virtual Publics.” Current Sociology 63.2 (2015): 228–243. DOI: 10.1177/0011392114556585.Semi, G., E. Colombo, I. Comozzi, and A. Frisina. “Practices of Difference: Analyzing Multiculturalism in Everyday Life.” Everyday Multiculturalism. Eds. Amanda Wise and Selvaraj Velayutham. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Sinclair, Iain, and Stuart Cunningham, eds. Floating Lives: The Media and Asian Diasporas. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.Wise, Amanda, and Selvaraj Velayutham, eds. Everyday Multiculturalism. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. DOI: 10.1057/9780230244474.Wu, Nicholas, and Karen Yuan. “The Meme-ification of Asianness.” The Atlantic Dec. 2018. <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/12/the-asian-identity-according-to-subtle-asian-traits/579037/>.Zambon, Kate. “Negotiating New German Identities: Transcultural Comedy and the Construction of Pluralistic Unity.” Media, Culture and Society 39.4 (2017): 552–567. Zhou, Min, and Carl L. Bankston. The Rise of the New Second Generation. Cambridge: Polity, 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0163443716663640.AcknowledgmentsThe empirical data reported here was drawn from Zooming In: Multiculturalism through the Lens of the Next Generation, a research collaboration between Swinburne University and the Victorian Multicultural Commission exploring contemporary perspectives on diversity among young Australians through their filmmaking practice, led by Chief Investigators Dr Glenda Ballantyne (Department of Social Sciences) and Dr Vincent Giarusso (Department of Film and Animation). We wish to thank Liam Wright and Alexa Scarlata for their work as Research Assistants on this project, and particularly the participants who shared their stories. Special thanks also to the editors of this special issue and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on an earlier version of this article. FundingZooming In: Multiculturalism through the Lens of the Next Generation has been generously supported by the Victorian Multicultural Commission, which we gratefully acknowledge.

The purpose of this thesis is to outline the relationship that existed in the past and exists in the present, between Australians and the War Graves and Memorials to the Missing. commemorations of Australians who died during the First World War. Their final resting places are scattered all over the world and provide a tangible record of the sacrifice of men and women in the war, and represent the final result by Official Agencies such as the Imperial, and later, Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and its agency representative, the Office of Australian War Graves, of an attempt to appropriately commemorate them. The study follows the path of history from the event of death of an individual in the First World War, through their burial; temporary grave or memorial commemoration; the permanent commemoration; the family and public reaction to the deaths; how the Official Agencies of related Commonwealth Governments dealt with the dead; and finally, how the Australian dead are represented on the battlefields of the world in the 21st century. Australia.s war dead of the First World War are scattered around the globe in more than 40 countries and are represented in war cemeteries and civil cemeteries; and listed on large „Memorials to the Missing., which commemorate the individuals devoid of a known graves or final resting place.

Created in 1975, the origins of the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) lay in two decades of community concern about the perceived degradation of the Australian cultural and natural heritage. The Australian Heritage Commission has provided advice to the Commonwealth on all major environmental issues during the period under analysis. Despite possessing considerable intellectual resources to carry out its work, the AHC has been the subject of intense criticism both from within and without the government service. Despite the obvious importance of the organisation in a growing area of government policy, there has curiously been little if any independent academic evaluation of its operation and assessment of its performance. This thesis argues that the AHC has been unable to effectively fulfil the original expectation of the Hope Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate; that is that the timely collection and analysis of environmental and historical data would reduce the level, complexity and number of national environmental disputes. Through the establishment of the AHC, it was also believed the Australian Government could better coordinate a national response to any given conservation issue. While largely succeeding in its primary task of gathering, interpreting and presenting data relevant to the National Estate, these actions alone have not prevented long running and acrimonious land use conflicts. Entrenched opposition to the AHC as a visible representation of environmentalism in government has caused destabilisation of the organisation and reduced its effectiveness. For much of its life, the AHC has also had insufficient resources to carry out its statutory workload. These circumstances encouraged the Commonwealth to develop new approaches to resolving environmental issues including the formation of the Resource Assessment Commission (RAC). This thesis outlines the development and impact of a single agency, which has been required to operate in the turbulent and uncharted waters of Australian environmental politics and policy for two decades. It traces the evolution of the AHC as an organisation, adopting a framework using the key recommendations of the Hope Inquiry which led to its establishment. The thesis examines the role of the AHC as an adviser to Cabinet on environmental policy emphasising the importance of scientific research and data collection; and its responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of the National Estate. The relationship between the AHC and other Commonwealth Government bodies providing advice or information to Cabinet forms an important part of the thesis, as does an assessment of the AHC's contribution to the changing face of Commonwealth policy over two turbulent decades.

In 1968, the Housing Commission, Victoria, built a series of high-rise towers in response to an identified metropolitan planning issue: urban sprawl and the outward growth of metropolitan Melbourne. This “solution” precipitated a crisis in urban identity. The construction of the first of a series of these modern high-rise towers at Debney Park Estate, Carlton and Park Towers, South Melbourne displaced significant immigrant communities. This became the impetus for the formation of Residential Associations who perceived this project a major threat to existing cultural values pertaining to social and built heritage. This paper examines the extremely polarising events and the positions of both the Housing Commission and the Residential Associations over the course of fifteen years from 1968. The research is grounded in an historical review of government papers and statements surrounding the social housing towers, as well as scholarly articles, including information gathered by Renate Howe and the Urban Activists Project (UAP, 2003-2004). The historical review contextualises the dramatically vocal and well-publicised positions of the Residential Associations and the Housing Commission by reference to the wider social circumstances and the views of displaced community groups. Looking beyond the drama of the heated debate sparked by this crisis, the paper exposes nuances within the positions, investigates the specifics of the lesser known opinions of displaced residents and seeks to re-evaluate the influence of the towers on the establishment of an inner urban community identity.