Australia's "monocultural" identity - mono, multi, or both?

1. Introduction

ALP, 1984

Australia's cultural identity is simply stated - democratic, open, free, and national. The present writer is confused as to why government, and media and certain organizations do not understand this. It has 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. It remained so until Federation in 1901, and the Indigenous people remained disenfranchised within that system through to 1967.

However, it is clear that Australia's cultural identity as of June 2026 is primarily based on a British legal and political system which evolved from Greek democratic and philosophical principles, and on Christian religious practice. This distinct cultural identity was termed "monocultural" by Senator Pauline Hanson in her speech at the National Press Club, Canberra, on Wednesday, 17 June 2026. If one thinks about what Hanson said, surprisingly there is no real problem with that, and the reason why is outlined below. 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 realised that we can be both "monocultural" and a multicultural society, and the two are not in conflict. Why? Because the term "monocultural" as used by Hanson 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 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. What do we mean by that?

Every Australian must adhere to certain basic realities and obligations, namely, every person is equal before the law, and that law is THE law. It is not, for example, Shariah law imposed by Islam, or any other legal system apart from Australia's own. It is not, at this stage, Indigenous law / lore imposed 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.

So why does all this need to be said? Why is there a need for an explanation of words and meanings? Well, the answer relates to the controversy arising out of the aforementioned statements made by Hanson. These are included in the following report from the multicultural / multiethnic SBS News service, though it should be pointed out that the issue has long 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? 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!, had been subverted, questioned, subjugated and largely ignored, due to the rise in WOKE and DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) ideologies throughout the West 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 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 problem with 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:

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., a single law, a single democratic system of politics, a single view that all people are equal, a single open and free society which respects the right of individuals to free speech, but not to 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. They also support multiculturalism, and within the present article aims to 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 they must be punished, as we have seen in recent decades with the erosion of free speech, the introduction of concepts such as misinformation / disinformation applying to truth which is deemed by government or others to be unacceptable or not agreed to by concensus (viz. Wikipedia content). An opposing opinion is not inherently hate speech. Adolph Hitler used hate speech. To criticize aspects of Islamic ideology such as jihad is not hate speech. To criticise aspects of any ideology which harms individuals is not hate speech.

This unique Australian "monocultural" identify in no way conflicts with the basic multicultural makeup of Australian society. 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 their normal way of life, and the ideal, i.e., 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.

Critical thinking has become a victim of the modern move towards pandering based on race, religion, sex and any and all forms of real and perceived discrimination. 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. With the Hanson "monocultural" falling in the ambit of the anti-white and decolonization agenda of academia, the media and the Left, the attacks are virulent, visible and popular. With the increasing rise in popularity of One Nation to around 33% in the polls, Hanson is now backed by staff and resources that are 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 of Australian identity when it should be lead by people across the political, intellectual and culture socio-economic spectrum?

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 outlined above, and which demands respect and its rightful place in Australian society.

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.

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.

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

2. "Monocultural" vs. assimilation

It is interesting that Hanson's "monocultural" proposal was immediately reclassified as assimilation by a local Greek commentator and the ABC News (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. Unfortunately Hanson made two references to assimilation in her speech, as follows:

.... demand assimilation, social cohesion, and loyalty to our nation, not endless appeasement of activists, bureaucrats, and Marxists. .... 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. The Greek commentator was mixing up assimilation with the necessary national practice of screening and integration for immigrants and people claiming refugee status. The European Union in June 2026 voted to impose similar restrictions on immigration both legal and illegal into their countries, especially to bring to a halt unrestricted illegal immigration. The EU Migration Past 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. And this is easily seen if we replace the word assimilation with integration, all directed towards social cohesion and not multicultural dissolution. Also, we are not talking about banning refugees. 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. 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, there is no doubt that it should not be supported by any Western democracy, including Australia.

Integration is vital for any nation state in regards to how it deals with immigrants. 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 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." 

----------------- 

3. Who are we? 

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 6th 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.

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

4. References

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

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

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.

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

Last updated: 24 June 2026

Michael Organ, Australia