I don’t agree with everything Senator Pauline Hanson says. But when she argues that migrants to Australia must align with Australian values, she is stating something I have argued consistently since 2010—and something that certain commentators have made increasingly difficult to say.
Senator Hanson has often been clumsy in how she expresses these concerns. Perhaps “monoculture” is not the right term for what she intended to convey, as it could suggest cultural homogeneity rather than a shared value system rooted in 21st-century liberal principles. But on the core proposition—that Australian values are worth defending and that those who migrate here should embrace them—she is right, and her critics are wrong. The fact that this position is now considered controversial tells us more about the state of public discourse than about the merits of the argument.
Australia is one of the most successful multicultural nations on earth. Nearly half of us were born overseas or have a parent who was. We eat each other’s food, marry across ethnic lines, and celebrate our diversity as a national strength. But this multiculturalism thrives precisely because it rests on a ‘monocultural’ foundation: a shared commitment to liberal democratic values that are non-negotiable. You can replace ‘monoculture’ with bedrock, core, or anchor if you find the word too controversial, but the essence of the argument does not change.
These values are not complicated. Freedom of speech, including the freedom to criticise religion and government. The rule of law applied equally regardless of faith or background. Equality of opportunity between men and women, between people of all sexualities, between citizens of every ethnicity. The separation of religious authority from state power.
The uncomfortable truth that polite society refuses to acknowledge is this: all cultures and religions contain admirable and objectionable elements, but they are not all equally good or bad, nor equally compatible with liberal democracy. A culture that prescribes death for apostasy is not equivalent to one that protects religious freedom. A tradition that prescribes discriminatory laws regarding marriage and inheritance for women is not the equal of one that enshrines gender equality by law. To say otherwise is not tolerance—it is the abandonment of the very principles that make tolerance possible.
For too long, the Australian left has conflated any discussion of cultural compatibility with racism. This is intellectually dishonest and practically dangerous. When I wrote in 2011 that David Cameron was right to declare state multiculturalism a failure or when I argued that we should not import cultural practices that oppress women or minorities, the attacks came thick and fast. But the position I held then is the position I hold now: being brown-skinned does not obligate me to defend practices I would condemn if they occurred in white communities.
The critics will say that emphasising values is merely a cover for excluding people based on race or religion. This is precisely backwards. A values-based approach to immigration is the most inclusive framework possible, because it judges people not by their ancestry or appearance but by their commitment to shared principles. The question is never where you come from or what god you worship. The question is whether you accept that in Australia, your neighbour has the right to worship differently or be an atheist, speak freely even if it means criticising your god or cultural practices, and live as an equal citizen under secular law—whether they are a man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual. In a liberal society, respect must be commanded, not demanded.
What I am describing is not an abandoning of one’s heritage. I am proud of my Indian cultural roots and thankful for the wisdom of Hindu spiritualism into which I was born. Cultural diversity is a gift. But there is a difference between the expression of cultural identity and the public imposition of cultural values that conflict with liberal democracy. You can keep your language, your food, your religious observances, your family traditions. What you cannot do is demand that Australian society accommodate practices that violate the fundamental principles of equality for all its people. There is also a fundamental difference between being proud of one’s roots and being a cultural or religious chauvinist.
Those who exploit our openness to advocate for values fundamentally hostile to Australian society—and the activists who provide them cover by screaming “racism” at anyone who raises concerns—are damaging social cohesion and the fabric of Australia. The radical Islamist who preaches antisemitism or homophobia is not a victim of Australian intolerance; he is a beneficiary of it, protected by the very freedoms he seeks to destroy. And the leftist activist who defends him in the name of diversity is not progressive but regressive, sacrificing the hard-won rights of women and minorities on the altar of cultural relativism.
Australia’s migration program should remain practical enough to attract the best and brightest minds in the world with numbers that are economically and environmentally sustainable. Otherwise, we risk stagnation. We should continue to welcome people from every corner of the globe, as we have for generations. But generosity does not require naivety. We can and should admit only those who align with Australian values—including accepting that women are equal to men, that religious criticism is protected speech, and that the law applies equally to all. These are not trick questions designed to exclude. They are the minimum requirements for participation in a free society.
A multiculturalism that refuses to privilege liberal democratic values, that treats all cultural practices as equally valid, that condemns any concern about compatibility as racist—leads not to a richer society but to a fragmented one. It leads to parallel communities that never integrate, to women trapped in oppressive family structures with no recourse to Australian law, to gay teenagers afraid to come out because their community follows different rules. This is not diversity. It is the failure of diversity.
So yes, I find myself in agreement with Pauline Hanson. The Australia that welcomed me and millions of others is worth preserving. Its values are not arbitrary impositions but the foundation of a free and equal society. And asking newcomers to embrace those values is not bigotry—it is the very condition that makes our remarkable multicultural experiment possible.
Those who call this position racist have it exactly backwards. It is the most anti-racist position imaginable: the belief that people of every background are capable of embracing freedom, equality, and the rule of law—and that we should expect nothing less.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
