In the first of a two-part series, Robin Brown and Nick Bogiatzis argue that the moral values claimed as Western are common human values – and deeply present in the world’s oldest continuing culture.
Pauline Hanson told the National Press Club recently that Australia must become monocultural. “We cannot be a multicultural society,” she said. “We are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural. Australians must live under the one cultural umbrella.” She pointed to Japan as her model.
This is a call for something that has never existed. As La Trobe University’s Gwenda Tavan observes, even the British settlers who arrived after 1788 were never a monoculture. They were divided by class, ethnicity and religion. An ABS survey published the same week as Hanson’s speech found 75 per cent of Australians accept that multiculturalism is good for society. Most understand instinctively what Hanson does not: you can belong fully to this country and bring your own culture with you.
We need to be clear about what multiculturalism actually is, because it is being deliberately misrepresented. Andrew Hastie MP recently suggested it is the left-wing extreme of a spectrum, with monoculturalism at the right-wing end and some sensible middle ground between them. The true opposite of monoculturalism is not multiculturalism but ghettoisation – the retreat of ethnic, religious or ideological communities into isolated silos, who engage only minimally with the wider society. That happens either by intent or by the exclusionary practices of the larger society.
Multiculturalism, properly understood, is the middle ground. It supports the flourishing of diverse beliefs and practices within a shared framework: adherence to the laws of the land, a common language, respect for national symbols and the full inclusion of all in the cultural, economic and political life of the nation. Diverse identity and national belonging are complements, not enemies. Hanson’s “monoculture” and the ghettoisation it would actually produce are the two extremes on either side of it.
The deeper problem with the politics Hanson is running is its claim to Christian foundations. The civilisational identity these politicians invoke is that of the “Christian West”. But the central tenets of Christian ethics are completely at odds with a politics built on fear of the other, the exclusion of refugees and the cultivation of grievance against minorities. The Sermon on the Mount, the most celebrated distillation of Christian ethics, talks of loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, and caring, especially for the poor, the meek and the stranger. Samuel Johnson put it well: “Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not.” And Rabbi Hillel summarised the Torah as: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.” It is very hard to read those words alongside One Nation’s immigration policy.
The deepest irony is that the primary target of this politics, Muslim immigrants, belongs to a tradition that shares these foundations entirely. Islam reveres Jesus as a major prophet whose teachings carry the weight of divine revelation. Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon, delivered in 632 CE, is a close parallel to the Sermon on the Mount. It was ahead of its time in proclaiming human equality, condemning racial hierarchy and insisting on the sanctity of every life. Politicians who invoke Christian ethics to exclude Muslims are invoking a tradition that Islam itself venerates.
And this ethical resonance does not belong only to the Abrahamic faiths. It is the common inheritance of nearly every major spiritual and philosophical tradition on earth. Confucius taught: “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.” The Hindu Mahabharata calls it the sum of duty: “Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” The Buddha: “Do not do to others what you know would cause you suffering.” The African philosophy of Ubuntu holds that one’s humanity is inextricably bound to the humanity of others. The same moral logic appears in every tradition, on every continent.
Unsurprisingly and profoundly the same kinds of values are found in the oldest continuous culture; the one on this continent. Australian Indigenous worldviews are built on principles of respect, responsibility and reciprocity. Anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose, in her seminal Nourishing Terrains (1996), documented a moral universe in which human beings are situated within a web of obligation – to other species, to the land, to future generations. Marcia Langton has observed that Indigenous leadership is earned by elders who are “kind and strong and morally centred”. The ethic of Dadirri, articulated by Elder Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr-Baumann, calls for deep listening and quiet attentiveness that she likens to contemplation, a gift, she says, that Australia is thirsting for. The Uluru Statement from the Heart speaks of Makarrata: coming together after a struggle, a call for justice and reconciliation built on the same foundations of universal dignity and care for the other.
Cross-cultural research by Atari, Haidt and colleagues (2023), studying 25 diverse populations, found that basic moral foundations — care, fairness, loyalty — appear across all of them. Though emphasis and institutional expression vary, the foundational moral content does not. Australian political theorist Anthony Langlois (2001; 2009), drawing on fieldwork in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, demolished the 1990s notion of “Asian values” argument, the claim that non-western cultures hold fundamentally incompatible values. His argument is that human rights are universal because the moral case that they should apply to all people is compelling. Human rights, now broadly agreed internationally, have not been explicit in all traditional cultures but are implicit within them and readily accommodated.
The values are not western. They are human. And they are present in 65,000 years of Australian history, not just the 238 that came after.
Robin Brown
Robin Brown is Deputy Chair of Fairer Future. He has advised Australian and overseas governments, businesses and NGOs on consumer protection, competition policy and regulatory accountability. Formerly head of the Consumers’ Federation of Australia, he helped secure the landmark court ruling that enabled bans on second‑hand tobacco smoke and spearheaded creation of both the Consumers’ Health Forum and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.
Nick Bogiatzis
Nick Bogiatzis is a retired federal public servant, published author, and experienced public policy adviser with a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University, following graduation from the Universities of Queensland and Tasmania. His career and interests have focused on social policy, multiculturalism and the challenges of democratic dialogue in diverse societies. With experience in Australia and overseas, Nick combines global perspective with a deep understanding of Australia’s cultural and political landscape. He is particularly interested in how societies navigate difference, conflict and change — and in creating the conditions for honest, respectful conversation.