Australia's "monocultural" identity in a multicultural society

Contents

1. Introduction
2. "Monocultural" vs. assimilation
3. Who are we?
4. References

-----------------

Abstract: Is Pauline Hanson's Australian "monocultural" identity just assimilation renamed, or is it a genuine attempt to initiate a discussion around the subject of Australia's distinctive cultural identity, and the associated crisis which arose, in part, as a result of the Bondi Beach Islamic jihad massacre of 14 December 2025? In the new millennium, this identity has become as vacuous and divisive as the political leadership. The present article attempts to clearly define an Australian identity which, in part, must be adhered to by all residents in order to ensure social cohesion and a continuation of those aspects of our Western society which are considered worth preserving and protecting. It is shown that Australia can be both the multicultural society which has existed since the British invasion of 1788, and operate under a Hanson-like "monocultural" framework which ensures social cohesion and is already in place. The move towards a bi-cultural identity which includes Indigenous cultural heritage is also a priority.

-----------------

Australian Citizenship Pledge of Commitment 2026

From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect,
and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Konstantin Kisin, Monoculture explained, John Anderson, 1 July 2026, YouTube, duration: 4.07 minutes.

1. Introduction

Australia's cultural identity is simply stated - democratic, ethically humanitarian, just, open and inclusive. Most Australians know this, and live it every day of their lives, even if they cannot express it in words. The present writer is therefore confused as to why government, media, and certain organizations both political and private do not understand this; do not know what it means to be Australian, and confuse the historic monocultural identity with multiculturalism. Significant elements of this identity have been in place since the British invasion of 1788, in which the Indigenous population was dispossessed and Australia became a colony within the British Empire, subject to its laws, political processes and Judeo-Christian moral base. It remained colonial until Federation in 1901, and the Indigenous people were disenfranchised within that system through to 1967. 

It is clearly understood that Australia's cultural identity as of 2026 is based on a legal and political system which evolved from Greek democratic and philosophical principles, and Christian religious practice and ideology / theology, refined through a Great British and European based process over a period of approximately two millenia. In general, this is aligned with the concept of Western civilization. The present writer had been a critic of Western Civilisation in the recent past. However, retirement and the possibility of doing a deep dive into history through a more expansive lens altered that view, such that the positives are visible, whilst the negatives are not ignored, nor are they born like a weight to stifle progress and push back against mindless hatred of one's past heritage.

ALP, 1984.

Australia's distinct cultural identity was termed "monocultural" by Senator Pauline Hanson in her speech to the National Press Club, Canberra, on Wednesday, 17 June 2026. The British commentator Konstantin Kisin, in conversation with former Australian Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson five months earlier, had also put forward the notion of the long-term existence of an Australian monoculture, though without any controversy.

If one thinks clearly about what Hanson said (not always an easy task), surprisingly there is no real problem therein, and the reason why is outlined below. Hanson's often extreme views and poor use of the English language do not cancel the fact that her One Nation party is finding increasing support amongst the Australian public. As such they need to be critically considered. Within the "monocultural" statement there is much of import. However, Hanson stuffed up when she also said, in the same breath, "We cannot be a multicultural society." This rightly caused confusion, and opened up the floodgates of opposition and derision.

Hanson did not (does not?) realise that Australia can be both "monocultural" and a multicultural society, and that the two are not inherently in conflict. Why? Because the term "monocultural" as used by Hanson points to a reality which applies to every person who is a permanent resident in Australia, who votes, who claims to be Australian, and who has a primary allegiance to the country. That person - of any age - can be of any race, any religion, any sex, and any ideology, as long as they are aligned with Australia's cultural identity as outlined above, i.e., as long as they adhere to the "monocultural" identity of this nation. They can be multicultural, but also need to be monocultural. What do we precisely mean b y that?

We mean that every Australian must adhere to certain basic realities and obligations, namely, equality before the law, and that law is THE Australian law. It is not, for example, Shariah law imposed by Islam, or any other legal system apart from Australia's own.

The Times, London, 18 December 2024.

As King Charles III noted back in 1993:

For the Muslims in our society, there is a need to respect the history, culture and way of life of our country, and to balance their vital liberty to be themselves with an appreciation of the importance of integration in our society. (King Charles III, Oxford University, 23 September 1993)

Australia's law does not, at this stage, incorporate Indigenous law / lore according to traditional Aboriginal / First Nations / Indigenous culture, though the present writer is supportive of that being incorporated as much as possible into Australian law.

This equality before the law cannot discriminate based on race, creed, colour or any other form of discrimination identified within society, and most especially as recently propagated in the West in connection with DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives. The world has recently seen, with the murder of young Henry Nowak in England, that discrimination in favour of "people of colour" over "white" people can have tragic effects, and, in the process of supposedly dealing with racism, that society has now created a new form of racism, centred on the largely white, indigenous population of Great Britain. This sort of societal stupidity in the name of DEI must be condemned and removed. The path forward is simple - just look to the history of Australia, and see what works and what does not work. The following graphic lays it out quite clearly.

Michael James Hummingbird, Facebook, 18 June 2026.

So why does all this need to be said? Why is there a urgent necessity to seek clear explanations of words and meanings? Well, the answer relates to the controversy arising out of the aforementioned statements made by Hanson. These statements are included in the following report from the multicultural / multiethnic SBS News service, though it should be pointed out that the issue has been bubbling away in Australia for a decade or more.

Pauline Hanson calls for ‘monocultural’ Australia at National Press Club, SBS News, 17 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 3.28 minutes.

Why did Pauline Hanson make the "monocultural" statement? Many would say it is just part of the One Nation agenda, and has not changed over the decades since Hanson first entered parliament back in 1996. Perhaps the primary reason was because the importance of a distinct Australian cultural identity, and of the existence of the former ALP 1984 election slogan Put Australia First!, which also featured the Australian flag, had been subverted, questioned, subjugated and largely ignored, due to the rise in WOKE and DEI ideologies throughout the West since the early 2010s, and driven by Leftist / Marxist ideologues.

This especially became noticeable as a result of the recent incursion into Australia of an Islamic ideology which was not consistent with Australian or Western culture and its basic identity, and of the reaction of both Muslims and Leftist to the atrocities of the HAMAS invasion of Israel on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent war. The impact of the Free Palestine movement resulted in what many Australians, including Hanson, saw as appeasement of a dangerous Islamic ideology which was clearly a threat to what many identified as Australia's cultural heritage and cultural identity. The Bondi Beach massacre of 14 December 2025 highlighted that threat in the worst, and clearest, possible way.

The rising problem of Islam had over the previous two decades been highlighted on an international scale through horrific experiences in Great Britain, Europe and America. It became clear that there was much within Islamic ideology and practice which was at odds with, and antithetical to, the West and its democratic principles, and as such to Australia's cultural identity. This is where the Pauline Hanson statement regarding a so-called "monocultural" identity comes into play. As she said:

Now we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims... We cannot be a multicultural society. We are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural. (Pauline Hanson, 17 June 2026)

The Australian cultural identity referred to above is, to all intents and purposes, a monoculture, i.e., it operates according to a single law and system of justice, a single democratic system of politics, a single human rights framework in which all people are considered equal, a single open and free society which respects the right of individuals to free speech and deplores censorship, and one which does not condone those who incite hatred or violence. That is what Hanson is referring to when she speaks of a monocultural identity. The present writer totally supports that ideal and that reality, whilst also supporting multiculturalism. But how can that be? It is easy, once we explain and highlight the important differences between these two aspects of Australian society.

The issue of dealing with so called "hate speech", which has become prominant since the Bondi Beach massacre, does not, and should not mean people who do not agree with something a person says can therefore claim that that person must be punished, as we have seen in recent decades with the erosion of free speech, and the introduction of concepts such as cancel culture, and the new crimes of spreading misinformation / disinformation which in actual fact applies to truth which is deemed by government or others to be unacceptable, personally hurtful, or not agreed to by concensus (viz. Wikipedia content). An opposing opinion is not inherently hate speech, though the UK has declared it so and fined and jailed its citizens as a result. Adolph Hitler used hate speech. To criticize aspects of Islamic ideology such as jihad or misogyny is not hate speech or Islamophobia. To criticise aspects of any ideology which harms individuals is not hate speech. It is Truth Telling.

This unique Australian "monocultural" identity in no way conflicts with the basic multicultural makeup of Australian society. If Hanson's One Nation thinks it does, then they are wrong, as is their view that multiculturalism needs to be abandoned. The Howard Coalition government had basically started that process during the early 2000s when they stopped using the term, and attacked multicultural support organisations. However, they were not successful. Why? Because Australia has been a multicultural society since at least 1788, and this is a core element of Australia's cultural identity. And that is the problem. Ignorant people are conflating the two, meaningfully spreading hatred in their discussions when it is not warranted.

Almost all Australians would agree that the "monocultural" identity as espoused by Pauline Hanson is ideally a continuation of their normal way of life, and the ideal comprises a single rule of law, an emphasis on a single English language for communication, and a single commitment to democracy, equality of each and every human being, and freedom of expression as a vital element of an open society. So why have we got ourselves into this mess, divided over issues which are at the core of who we are and who we want to be? Why are people externalizing their internal hatreds to an unprecedented degree?

Critical thinking has become a victim of modern Western society, largely driven by the Left, but also supported by the Right and used by them, towards pandering based on race, religion, sex and any and all forms of real and perceived and discrimination, at all levels of society and its operation. With critical thinking the victim of Cancel Culture, the West has suffered more than any other system of society. With "whites" the primary exponents of Western culture, yet just 7% of the planet's population, attacks around the issue of whiteness, most especially by whites themselves, are racist, though never recognised as such. Similarly, the promotion of "white privilege" ignores the realities of history, as does the academic pursuit of decolonization, with the white British Empire as the primary target, and no mention made of the longest and most influential of all empires, namely the Islamic empire which has been in place since the 7th century and the time of Mohammed, and most often under the control of a single Calif - a global caliphate - to whom all Muslims answered.

All the evils of colonization were present there and remained for some fourteen centuries, just as they were present in the European and Asian based empires, with a good example being China's invasions and conquest of Tibet and Mongolia and their Indigenous populations being consumed and replaced by a Han monocultural identity. It is stupid to think that these elements much be rejected so that, for example, a Tibetan who has escaped from the autocratic and barbaric rule of the Communist Party of China must adhere to that rule supplanted in Australia by Han Chinese; or that a Muslim must adhere to the rulings of a local Sharia court which hands down determinations which are nothing less than illegal or immoral under Australian law. No. The same applies to any other culture that exists outside of Australia. The fact is, Australia has a single, dominant culture, as outlined above. It also has an ancient Indigenous culture which stands alongside the so-called Australian cultural identity, and which demands respect and its rightful place in Australian society.

With the Hanson "monocultural" ideal falling under the umbrella of the anti-white and decolonization agenda of academia, the media and the Left, the subsequent attacks have been virulent, visible and popular. With the increasing rise in popularity of One Nation to around 33% in the polls by the middle of 2026, Hanson was beginning to be backed by staff and resources able to present some of her ideas and beliefs in a more palatable and sensible manner to the people of Australia. For this reason, the present writer and others who are no fans of One Nation, ask: Why is Pauline Hanson leading a necessary debate around Australian identity when it should be lead by people across the political, intellectual and culture socio-economic spectrum?

Within that overriding Australian cultural identity, people can bring elements of their external culture to Australia as long as those elements do not conflict with Australia's basic cultural identity. This should not need to be stated. But, in the current idiotic furor over the Hanson statement, it needs to be said. Specifically, maintenance of this standard and evolving cultural identity will never be safe as long as there is no reformation of Islamic ideology. Australian culture does not abide Islam's inherent misogyny, pedophilia, homophobia, autocracy, lack of freedom of religion or speech, its brutal practice of Jihad, its racism towards Jews and its brutal attacks against Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and any other political or spiritual belief or way of living that does not submit to Islamic ideology. The following Sky News presentation by Paul Murray addresses the concerns outlined above.

Paul Murray, Albanese’s cowardice blasted for refusing to celebrate the culture that built Australia, Sky News, 23 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 26.22 minutes.

In addition, the following critical analysis of multiculturalism by Jack Gordon, based on the writings of Right-wing French philosopher Alain de Benoit (born 1943), reveals its inherent hypocrisy and conflict with basic Leftist ideals.

Jack Gordon, The Multiculturalism Myth, Jack Gordon, 23 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 21.31 minutes.

We see the Left supporting the rights of Indigenous societies and cultures to maintain difference, as opposed to the multicultural ideal where the priority of the unique Indigenous societal identity is rejected in favour of globalization and local acceptance of all external, foreign cultural identities, even if they are not consistent with national identity. The recent problems in the United Kingdom wherein Islamic ideology is being given priority over traditional British cultural identities by governments of both the Left and Right is a perfect example. From Gordon's analysis we can see how Western society is self-immolating, in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion, whilst not realising the harm it is doing to itself. As ever, a middle way is the ideal, through maintenance of Indigenous societies within specific homelands or geographical regions, combined with a welcoming of different cultures which adhere to the basic tenets of that Indigenous cultural identity, which in turn maintains a continuation of power over those elements which ensure societal cohesion and are unique. As Gordon notes in regards to Western civilization:

The biggest threat to European people is not military conquest, but the loss of your own identity. (Gordon 2026)

Australia is a good example of where this applies. Since the British invasion of 1788 the Indigenous population of Australia has maintained its cultural identity, despite attempts by the invaders to assimilate that identity within the British / multicultural identity of the new society now in power. This assimilation effort continued for almost two centuries, before it was finally rejected around the time of the Bicentennial in 1988 and the idea of Indigenous sovereignty was talked about and later reinforced by the Mabo decision, though never actually implemented in any official manner, despite widespread community support. The pushback against Hanson by the local Left regarding the "monocultural" issue can be seen in part from this analysis of Greens actions from the Oceania Unfiltered YouTube channel.

They want One Nation criminalized in OZ! The ultimate Greens stitch-up, Oceania Unfiltered, 26 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 11.18 minutes.

---------------

2. "Monocultural" & assimilation

Paul Keating, Paul Keating on Pauline Hanson, 11 November 1996, Jenny Macklin MP, YouTube, duration: 2.40 minutes. Presentation at the University of New South Wales.

Ever the politician, former Prime Minister Paul Keating responded to Paul Hanson's maiden speech with an attack around the issue of the monoculture (Keating 1996). Then, as now, the reaction was primarily political - though Keating's is quite expansive - and not philosophical, which it needed and needs to be. He distorts the meaning of the word monoculture which, as revealed above, has at least two very different interpretations - one is a racist, anti-multicultural society one, which is very limiting; the other deals with the distinct cultural identity of a nation as it evolves over time, but which is also ultimately distinct and unique and valuable. The present writer rejects the former and supports the latter.

It is interesting that Hanson's "monocultural" proposal in 2026 was immediately labelled assimilation by a local Greek commentator and the ABC News, reflecting the Keating comment three decades before (Dingwall et al. 2026, Kapetopoulos 2026). That word is very much a negative term in the Australian context, applying primarily to the manner in which the British invaders dealt with the Aboriginal people from 1788 through to at least the Bicentennial of 1988. They imposed assimilation, which involved cultural annihilation through the banning of language and all forms of cultural practice, alongside a complete disregard for their humanity when labelled primitive savages and subject to physical, spiritual and psychological attacks. Unfortunately Hanson made two references to assimilation in her speech, thereby adding to the confusion and subsequent misinterpretation of her message:

.... demand assimilation, social cohesion, and loyalty to our nation, not endless appeasement of activists, bureaucrats, and Marxists. .... [immigrants must] learn to be able to speak English before they get here so they can assimilate into our society."

At its core, Hanson's "monocultural" is not assimilation as historically practised in Australia, and the Greek community in Australia has not been the subject of assimilation, as such. The Greek commentator was mixing up the negative aspects of assimilation as historically practiced in Australia with the necessary national practice of screening and obligation to integrate for immigrants and people claiming refugee status. Are the critics of Hanson suggesting that immigrants and refugees should not integrate into Australian society? If so, then they are not supportive of the social cohesion which has been a feature of the local society since the British invasion, not to forget of the course the inherent racism, sexism, misogyny and other discriminatory practices that came to the country as part of its multicultural agenda, from fears of the Yellow Peril, of the black races in general, of the Mohammedans and Asians, and through to modern day anti-Semitism.

The issue of racism and tribal fear of the "other" is very much a contemporary one. For example, the European Union in June 2026 voted to impose restrictions on legal and illegal immigration into their countries, especially to bring to a halt unrestricted illegal immigration. These mirror restrictions brought into place by Australia during the early 2000s under the Howard Coalition government. The EU Migration Pact put in place:

A broader set of sweeping regulations - the New Pact on Migration and Asylum - [which] officially took effect to enforce stricter asylum screening and standardize procedures across member states.

So whilst the language used by Hanson was inflammatory within the context of Australian history, the actions were timely in regard to clarification of the national identity issue. And this is easily seen if we replace the word assimilation with integration, the latter of which is directed towards social cohesion and not multicultural dissolution. We are not talking about banning refugees or structured and controlled immigration programs. As in the past, it is ultimately about managing the issue in a humanitarian manner, but also in the best interests of the country and its people. Put Australia First! means just that, and the consequences of not doing that can be seen in countries such as Great Britain, Europe and the United States over recent years, especially as an open borders policy as been pursued in line with Leftist WOKE ideology.

Whilst the Left and humanitarian groups push back on this, as ever there is a Middle Way which can address all the issues raised and provide a sustainable, if not a concensus, solution. For example, to support the introduction of Shariah Law into Australia may be supported by some groups through concensus, though there is no doubt that it should not be supported by any Western democracy, including Australia, as it is clearly antithetical to basic humanitarian rights and equality for all. The fact that is based on prescriptive texts such as the Qur'an and Hadith does not make it right or just or fair or something which the West is oblige to adhere to.

Integration is vital for any nation state in regards to how it deals with immigrants and refugees. Integration in the present and historical contexts includes adoption of the Australian cultural identity elements outlined at the head of this article. This has been so since 1788. If immigrants and refugees are not willing to abide by those elements, which are clearly outlined to them when they seek migration to Australia, then the hope for unity within diversity in a multicultural society is never achieved. Integration is therefore based on this system which Hanson has referred to as "monocultural."

Unfortunately, opponents to Hanson muddy the waters by introducing alternative view and interpretations which, at the end of the day, fail to address the core issue of clarifying those elements of Australia's cultural identity that are key. A good example of this diversionary tactic is the statement by Alan Gamlen, director of the Australian National University's Migration Hub, as quoted in an ABC News article of 20 June 2026:

"Monoculturalism" was the idea that everyone followed a uniform set of norms and rules for behaviour, that included the foods they ate, the clothes they wore, the gods they worshipped, the language they spoke, and more (Dingwall et al. 2026).

This is extreme, to say the least, and is not what Hanson had proposed in her use of the word "monocultural." Whilst the initial part of the statement is largely correct, namely: ....that everyone followed a uniform set of norms and rules for behaviour...., and these have been discussed above, the rest of Gamlen's definition is totally misleading and inflammatory. Yet this definition is featured in the ABC News article discussing Hanson's presentation. As usual, the Left-leaning tendencies of Australia's national broadcaster, like its British equivalent the BBC, had long ago abandoned any semblance of reporting and presenting information across all sides of the political divide. There is no pro-Hanson view expressed in their stories as part of an obligation to be balanced in its reporting. In a similar vein, Sky News Australia is very supportive of Hanson and One Nation. The present writer would like to point out here that he is no fan of One Nation; he is, however, a fan of free speech, of reporting on all sides of an argument; and of critical thinking, which takes not of both, or all sides of any argument in order to come to a reasonable, rational and defensible position on issues of merit. Bias on the part of media and government should not be part of any open democracy and the official agencies of that democracy. whether they be bureaucratic, judicial, law enforcement or military. Once again, this is an ideal, but its implementation subverts corruption and bad decision making.

In addressing Gamlen's definition, Hanson's "monocultural" makes no reference to food; the only reference to clothes is banning the Islamic hijab and other coverings forced upon women, and which have actually been banned in countries across the world, including France, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Bulgaria, and Switzerland; no mention of banning religions or the gods people worship, though political and social elements of Islam ideology have been banned and identified as antithetical to Western democracy; or impacting upon languages, apart from stating that people learn English before coming to live in Australia, as this is an important part of the process of integration, to stave off isolation and racial or ideological compartmentalization. Of course the present writer disagrees with Gamlen's definition of monoculture, especially as it applies to the statements by Hanson.

-----------------

3. Who are we?

Australia is in an identity crisis, The Karl Stefanovic Show, 19 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 47.30 minutes.

Whatever word or words one choose to use, Australia's cultural identity is distinct, knowable and definable. It is necessary and desirable. It always was, and always will be if Australia and Australians desire peace, harmony and stability within society.

The present writer is a 5th generation Australian of English and Irish descent, with his forebear having arrived in New South Wales during 1835 as a soldier in charge of convicts. He and his family settled in Wollongong in 1839 and have remained in the area since then. The above article is written with this personal context and individual experience in mind. As an historian, the writer has also worked with local Indigenous communities for more than four decades, recognizing the distinctive uniqueness of Australia's Indigenous civilization, as separate from the post-Invasion society and civilization which is defiinitely multicultural, but as noted above, operates according to a "monocultural" cultural identity. The writer, as a lifelong member of the Left and ideologically aligned with the Greens, is no great fan of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. However, the current debate over Australia's cultural identity as stimulated by the senator is welcome, especially in light of the ambiguous and weak response of politicians across the political spectrum, and an almost innate hatred of Australia's cultural heritage by the Left.

Australia has, until recently, proudly promoted its multicultural heritage, and rightly so. Unfortunately the recent pandering to non-integrated cultures, most especially Islam, is threatening the ongoing success of that heritage, and leading the country down the terrible path as revealed by the recent experiences in Great Britain and Europe. The Bondi Beach massacre of innocent Australians by local Islamic jihadist terrorists on 14 December 2025 reveals the real problem with pandering to foreign cultural ideologies at the expense of enforcing Australia's distinct and hard-fought local cultural identity. Putting Australia First! was a good slogan for the Australian Labour Party back in 1984. It remains a good slogan for Australia now and into the future.

Australian Citizenship Affirmation

As an Australian citizen,
I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people,
Whose democratic beliefs I share,
Whose rights and liberties I respect,
And whose laws I uphold and obey.

--------------

4. References

Australia is in an identity crisis, The Karl Stefanovic Show, 19 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 47.30 minutes.

Australian Citizenship Pledge of Commitment, Australian Government, Canberra, 2007. 

Dingwall, Doug, Claire Campbell and Will Jackson, What is 'monoculturalism' and what does it look like in practice?, ABC News, Australia, 20 June 2026.

Gordon, Jack, The Multiculturalism Myth, Jack Gordon, 23 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 21.31 minutes.

Hummingbird, Michael James, From Divided Identities to Shared Identities, Facebook, 18 June 2026.

Kapetopoulos, Fotis, Hanson's attack on multiculturalism is an attack on Greeks, Neos Kosmos, 17 June 2026.

Keating, Paul, Paul Keating on Pauline Hanson, 11 November 1996, Jenny Macklin MP, YouTube, duration: 2.40 minutes.

Kisin, Konstantin, Monoculture explained, John Anderson, 1 July 2026, YouTube, duration: 4.07 minutes. 

Murray, Paul, Albanese’s cowardice blasted for refusing to celebrate the culture that built Australia, Sky News, 23 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 26.22 minutes.

Pauline Hanson calls for ‘monocultural’ Australia at National Press Club, SBS News, 17 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 3.28 minutes.

They want One Nation criminalized in OZ! The ultimate Greens stitch-up, Oceania Unfiltered, 26 June 2026, YouTube, duration: 11.18 minutes.

Wikipedia, Oath of Allegiance (Australia), Wikipedia, accessed 30 June 2026.

--------------

Last updated: 12 July 2026

Michael Organ, Australia