Australia’s multicultural project is falling apart
![]()
It’s routinely stated that “our diversity is our greatest strength." But can it still meaningfully be said when large numbers of Australians – largely from poorly integrated migrant communities – are protesting about events in Gaza?
It has become a platform cliche, mouthed by politicians at innumerable civic events, that Australia is “the world’s most successful multicultural society”.
Likewise, it’s routinely stated that “our diversity is our greatest strength”. And even that “our unity is in our diversity”.
Indeed, these bromides are often in speeches by civic worthies immediately after an acknowledgment that the relevant land belongs to some local Aboriginal “nation”.
Perhaps this made some sense when it was Greeks and Italians who were the “diversity” component of our immigration intake; and even beyond, to more recent times, when people from China and India have predominated. But can it still meaningfully be said when large numbers of Australians – largely from poorly integrated migrant communities – are protesting about events in Gaza?
It’s true the vast majority of migrants come to Australia because they see our country as offering them and their children a chance at a better life. Not since convict days has anyone been forced to come to Australia, so it stands to reason that those coming from overseas, whether from Britain or Somalia, are arriving with the intention to join us rather than to change us.
It’s just that, in sufficient numbers, migrants do change us, often for the better when they improve our intercultural understanding, our work ethic and invariably our cuisine. But sometimes for the worse, when they can’t leave behind the prejudices and the hatreds of their homeland.
The National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, first promulgated in Bob Hawke’s time and broadly subscribed to by every subsequent government, while acknowledging “the right of all Australians … to express and share their individual cultural heritage”, also declared – and this is what official practice tends to forget – that “multicultural policies are based upon the premise that all Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia, to its interest and future first and foremost”.
The Howard government tried to reinforce the need for new migrants to have an overriding loyalty to Australia via a citizenship test with questions (albeit very basic ones) on values that prospective new citizens have to pass; plus a citizenship pledge that all new citizens must make and are supposed to mean.
But how many of the Australians currently accustomed to demonstrating against democratic Israel and in favour of a Hamas-run Palestine could sincerely say their allegiance really is to “Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose values I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey” as the citizenship pledge stipulates?
The taboo over questioning the cultural make-up of our immigration intake, as opposed to its size, is that no one wants to slight those already here.
![]()
Douglas Murray speaks at the Alliance of Responsible Citizenship.
As distinguished British author and commentator Douglas Murray, said on my Sky News show in London last week, talking about the nature of immigrants is “painful because … many people think: are you talking about me? Are you talking about my parents, my grandparents and my great-grandparents?” Yet it’s a “lie”, he said, to pretend all migrants are equal. It comes down to whether immigrants want to integrate into society. “Do they want to be Australian? If the answer is yes then most Australians will be like ‘great, glad to have you with us’. But if the answer is no, what do you do? We still haven’t, in the developed world, worked out an answer to that,” said Murray.
Murray went on: especially in the Anglosphere, “we made a very odd decision when the era of mass migration began from what was then called the Third World … which was that we would try to integrate people into our societies by saying effectively our societies aren’t so great. It’s a very strange thing when one thinks about it.
“The world wants to move into your country but your country says ‘we’re bad’ … (But) if our societies were racist, misogynistic, terror societies defined by colonialism … people wouldn’t be trying to come.”
Murray has fingered the essence of the problem with multiculturalism. To make migrants from very different cultures feel welcome, we pretend that “we don’t really have a culture” even though, he says, “everybody in Australia who’s Australian knows what Australian culture is … (and) we don’t need teams of psychoanalysts to explain it to us. But people have tried to persuade us … that we should look down on everything that is ours and venerate everything that is the rest of the world’s.”
It’s what I’ve been calling the replacement, in our philosophy of immigration, of a stress on joining Team Australia with multiculturalism’s acceptance that people merely live in Hotel Australia that Murray says bluntly is simply “insane”.
![]()
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
But it gets worse. With migrants from China, say, or from India (where most have had an introduction, via the English language, to Anglo patterns of thought and behaviour) there’s a readiness to slip into the mainstream, if not immediately, certainly eventually; or, to use the language of the official policy of the 1950s and 60s, to integrate and ultimately assimilate. But what about migrants from fundamentalist Muslim cultures – such as Gaza, where the Albanese government has handed out 3000 tourists visas recently – where people have been indoctrinated since birth into Jew hatred and a general mindset of “death to the infidels”?
Here’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was born in Somalia, escaped a forced Islamic marriage in Kenya, survived a fatwa in The Netherlands and is now an academic: “Immigrants who are settled in Australia,” she said, “were told that they could assimilate or integrate on their own terms, hold on to their identity and unfortunately the result … for some of these migrants was to form their own ghettos.”
“The philosophy of multiculturalism,” she said, “empowered the Islamists into isolating Muslim individuals, convincing them that the Islamist world view is their world view … and turning them against the local populations.”
Multiculturalism, she said, “was supposed to make the immigrants feel more at home”. But it hasn’t, she said: “In every way, shape and form it has failed.”
Hirsi Ali is clear, and as a Muslim-born black migrant woman she can hardly be accused of racism for saying this: “We have to go back to emphasising the nation-state and what unites us … It is time to deport the radical imams … and if you don’t want to be an Australian citizen … then we are happy to let you go back to … the country of origin.”
![]()
Yahya Sinwar
Robust common sense such as this has been largely absent from official policy for at least a generation. Indeed, multiculturalism is currently embodied in absurdities such as the recent $1.65m community harmony grant to United Muslims of Australia which employs Sheik Ibrahim Dadoun, who declared he was “elated” by the October 7 atrocity and called the slain Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar a “legendary” martyr.
It’s way past time that we banish multiculturalism as official policy and replace it with a civic patriotism based on a commitment to Australian values. That will mean abolishing the vast array of multicultural grants that fund ethnic separatism; deporting on character grounds radical activists before they become citizens; not giving visas to people from authoritarian places that won’t accept their citizens back; and insisting that would-be Australian citizens face a much more searching test of commitment to Australian values. Having watched up close last week what’s playing out in Britain, we have time to avoid its mistakes, but time is running out.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.