Thanks, Peter! On the plus side, Australia has comparatively good census data about home language use and English language proficiency. On the down side, we are not using them well because Australian policy makers seem almost deliberate in the way they ignore linguistic expertise. Just commented on this the other day in the context of the new English language requirement for partner visas: https://twitter.com/lg_on_the_move/status/1313967996134588416?s=21

It was interesting to read about China’s response early on in the COVID-19 outbreak of engaging linguists from universities to help with the dilemma of relaying health information in various local dialects and languages (Li et al 2020b). I would like to know how many expert linguists are engaged by the department of health in the various state and federal jurisdictions in Australia. We here of the Victorian Governments promise of “deep engagement” with the migrant community from now on but what kind of human resources do they have at their disposal for this task? As was mentioned in a previous comment, it is not helpful to lump all languages other than English, together. Perhaps it would be useful for the government to obtain more meaningful information from the migrant community of specifically what languages and dialects thereof are spoken at home. While it is clear Australia is a multi-cultural/multi-lingual society, the linguistic dilemma that faces us in times of emergency such as at present seems small in comparison to the one faced by other countries in the world such as China and the Philippines. Our biggest problem it seems is the mono-lingual mindset of the government and the general population who tacitly demand that English be spoken for full membership of this society.

Li,Y., Rao, G., Zhang, J., and Li, J. (2020). Conceptualizing national emergency language competence. Multilingua, 39(5): 617–623

Cheers,

Peter

Thank you for the updates and thought-provoking developments, Alex.

For anyone who missed it, Alex’s research was featured in a recent SBS News article. Alex found major oversights in the NSW government’s Multicultural Health Communication Service’s health communication: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/missing-posters-and-fake-tweets-pandemic-communications-strategy-for-multicultural-australia-slammed

In response to the increasing community transmission of COVID-19 in Melbourne, the ABC quoted Premier Daniel Andrews yesterday on plans for a “very deep engagement with multicultural communities.” The quote is featured in the following bullet point in the article: “Premier Daniel Andrews said “very deep engagement with multicultural communities” began yesterday to make sure people in six COVID-19 hotspots knew the current health advice.” I couldn’t find more information (on the Victorian Gov’s health dept. webpage) on what this engagement will look like in practice, nor what languages the health advice will be provided in. A look at the census data for two of the suburbs in question showed a very diverse population of LOTES spoken at home, but, as has been discussed previously in blog posts here, this data doesn’t account for how multlilingual people use their languages and what the proficiencies in their languages may be.
I wonder whether we have any LOTM readers living in any of these Melbourne ‘hotspots’ who may be interested in recording their linguistic landscape or to report back on what this engagement looks like in practice (in keeping with physical distancing and gov restrictions of course)?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/coronavirus-cases-victoria-rise-as-schools-close-in-hotspots/12383106

I agree with these significant drawbacks, Ingrid. The team behind it are all medical researchers, not linguists – not an excuse, but a reason why they may be open to learning! They have reached out to me to get more input because they wish to expand their survey into something more sensitive. I hope they are able to. Unfortunately, there is very little published research so far in the pandemic in Australia about linguistic diversity and differential health outcomes – I see this one as an indication only, with more research to provide reliable, nuanced results yet needed.

Being able to showcase where the research like this could be much improved, through a public and accessible discussion as in your comment, is very useful. Thank you for making such a thorough and on-point reply.