Weaving new threads into our cultural tapestry

Several factors will drive pressure for high levels of immigration: among them the growing political constituency for family reunion, the falling cost of airfares, and large wage gaps between developed and developing nations.

For Australia, this represents more of the same. At the end of World War II, 10 per cent of Australian residents were born overseas (2 per cent in a non-English speaking country). In the most recent census, 23 per cent of Australians were born overseas (15 per cent in a non-English speaking country). To a greater extent than most countries, immigration will continue to shape Australia into the 21st century. Moreover, English will not be the native language of most new Australian immigrants.

A spate of studies suggest that continued high levels will most likely bring a raft of economic and social benefits to Australia. But we should not gild the lily. Most likely, higher diversity will lead to lower levels of interpersonal trust. One “solution” would be to reduce diversity by drastically cutting our immigration intake. Although this might raise levels of trust, it would probably be detrimental to Australian society on balance.

Lower immigration would impose an economic cost, barring businesses from importing much-needed skills. And there would be social costs too: families denied any chance of sponsoring their close relatives are less likely to participate wholeheartedly in Australian society.

The challenge for policymakers is how to maintain the current high levels of immigration while mitigating the impact on our social fabric. When it comes to interpersonal trust, one useful strategy would be to focus more attention on the problem itself: building local trust in immigrant communities. Since the benefits of programs to build social capital are probably greatest in places where community ties are weakest, such programs should be targeted towards communities that are poorer and more diverse.

Over time, we may also hope that race and ethnicity become less salient divisions in Australian society. Robert Putnam, who is conducting research on diversity and social capital in the United States, argues that one of the reasons that diversity reduces trust is that people "act like turtles", hunkering down to avoid those who are somehow different. Yet he also sees hope in the declining importance of the Catholic-Protestant divide in America over the past half-century:

Growing up in a small Ohio town in the 1950s, I knew the religion of just about every kid in my 600-person high school ... When my children attended high school in the 1980s, they didn't know the religion of practically anyone. It simply didn't matter ... In my lifetime, Americans have deconstructed religion as a basis for making decisions. Why can't we do the same thing with other types of diversity?

On the issue of diversity and immigration, the challenges for Australia and the United States are surprisingly similar. The big question is: will those who support diversity and trust recognise the tensions between their goals, or will they hunker down like turtles?