The monocultural golden age that (never) existed: An imagined past, and its consequences for a real future

PHOTO: Invasion Day Rally – Naarm (Melbourne), Matt Hrkac on Wikimedia Commons

In the current climate, Australia faces a complex crisis that shapes the future of its relationship with South East Asia. Although delayed compared to other countries, right-wing populism, which threatens Australia’s long-standing partnerships, has surged in Australia, and it has begun to target Australia’s multiculturalism. This, combined with a decline in tertiary language education enrolment, has the potential to change not only Australia’s society but also how the world interacts with Australia. 

Particularly, Australia’s commitment to the Melbourne Declaration would be under threat, as the declaration seeks to foster stronger cultural and people-to-people ties between Australia and ASEAN, to further integrate Australia into the Indo-Pacific space. 

Since the Whitlam era, multiculturalism has become a key part of the nation’s identity. As of the 2021 census, 50 per cent of Australians have a parent born overseas. However, to say that multiculturalism began in the 1970s would be incorrect. For millennia prior to British colonisation in Australia, over two hundred and fifty languages were spoken in Australia by First Nations people — many of which maintained a plethora of dialects. Despite genocidal policies which attempted to end the use of First Nations languages, over 150 of these languages are used daily. Multilingualism therefore has been woven into Australia’s fabric for millennia. 

Current discourse surrounding the discussions around multiculturalism frames it as a culture war, however, the public debate stretches far deeper into the concept of an Australian nation in and of itself. Understanding the meaning of these terms, as well as the history of multiculturalism, linguistic and legal pluralism in Australia is essential to understanding the country’s standing in the sphere of International Relations.    

Monoculture, more than a word?

“I am quite determined we should have a monoculture, with everyone living in the same way, understanding each other, and sharing the same aspirations. We don’t want pluralism.”

– Future Liberal Opposition Leader Bill Snedden in 1969, commenting on migration  

Originating in farm jargon, monoculture referred to a farming practice which involved planting a single crop on a given lot. As this practice became less common due to its frequent failure, the term was appropriated by cultural commentary, which used it to refer to hegemonic cultural phenomena, such as the appearance of coffee shops in North America and the popularity of certain pop culture events. It is safe to say that at the time, the term did not carry the same polarising connotations that it carries today. 

Pauline Hanson and her supporters point to Japan as an example of a monocultural society; however, reality presents a different vision. While Japanese elites tried to frame Japan as a “natural community” as opposed to a “nation formed by contract” where the national culture is created from a mix of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, policy and soft power can only change perception. However, reality is harder to change. Similar to Australia, Japan has an Indigenous population who experienced persecution by the state, who have contributed significantly to Japan. Furthermore, migrants in Japan account for nearly 4 million people — all of whom contribute significantly to Japan’s culture and economy. For example, the emergence of Indian merchant communities in Kobe in the 1920’s led to the creation of curry rice, an iconic Japanese home dish., This demonstrates that the idealised notion of “Japan for the Japanese” is non-existent in reality. 

While the specific term has not been used recently in Australian political discourse before Hanson’s speech at the National Press Club, the concept invoked has been discussed within Australia and abroad. Far-right former British MP Enoch Powell, in his infamous “rivers of blood” speech, insinuated that the acceptance of mass migration would lead to the end of a British nation, as well as distinguishing “good” foreigners, such as students and doctors from the Commonwealth, from the migrants who came to permanently settle in Britain. 

This mirrors Hanson’s maiden speech in 1996, where she claimed that Australia was in danger of being “swarmed by Asians”, which would lead to a societal collapse. Additionally, according to Powell’s logic, migrants must assimilate to dominant institutions and systems, mirroring the logic of Hanson. 

Despite calls for a monoculture being perceived as an example of ethnonationalism in Australian politics, Hanson has stated that the Socceroos are emblematic of a monocultural Australia, despite the team having diverse roots. Although these comments create ambiguity, monoculturalism functions as both a rhetorical tool and a policy. Hanson’s monoculturalism rhetoric helps popularise policies such as One Nation’s immigration policy by providing slogans for the public to associate with policy. Thus, the term becomes a shorthand for a range of policies which target multicultural groups. 

60,000 years of a multicultural Australia

PHOTO: Prime minister Gough Whitlam pouring sand into the palm of Gurindji leader Vincent Lingiari in August 1975, Mervyn Bishop on Wikimedia Commons

Australia’s linguistic diversity pre-colonisation is influenced by South-East Asia. Although many are not spoken anymore due to linguicidal policies enacted by governments, some languages carry influences from South East Asian languages prior to colonisation. This is due to the trade networks which flourished between Aboriginal peoples — mainly the Yolŋu people — and Macassan seafarers from the 18^th century until the Commonwealth government banned the traders from visiting in Australia, which led to the last visit in 1907. 

These links with South East Asia demonstrate why present-day relations with the region should not be framed as “emerging” or innovative, but rather as a return to traditional trade networks, in an attempt to decolonise after the rupture of settlement. Additionally, an enforcement of a policy of monoculture would be impossible, as time has shown that assimilationist policies aimed at First Nations people violate human rights such as article two of the UNHRC and do not work. For instance, the policies of the Stolen Generations directly targeted the use of Indigenous languages — despite this, First Nations languages remain spoken across Australia, in spite of language prohibitions continuing until the 1970s. 

These policies had an impact on Australia’s reputation globally. After the Bringing Them Home report was published in 1997, the Stolen Generations received coverage around the world, highlighting a tension between Australia’s supposed modern liberal democratic image and its mistreatment of First Nations peoples. Years on from the report’s publication, Human Rights Watch criticised Australia’s inability to establish a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament, which would enable First Nations Australians to seek self-determination. 

Commonwealth migration policy, beginning in 1901 with the White Australia Policy, also forced non-British migrants to assimilate to British settler culture. As the British Empire was home to diverse peoples, British settler-colonies resorted to linguistic discrimination to implicitly discriminate between People of Colour and white citizens. 

Beginning with the Natal Immigration Restriction Act 1897 in present-day South Africa, the settler-colonies restricted immigration to people with proficiency in a “European language”, with the specific language undefined. Following federation, Australia followed up with the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 that used the exact same test. Often migrants were given tests in languages not widely spoken in the British Empire, such as Italian. 

Thus, the lack of success of past attempts at forming a monoculture is prophetic of a potential future failure. For monoculturalism to be even attempted, let alone be successful would require a dramatic rupture in Australian society. 

Present Day

PHOTO: Australia Menyerahkan ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA) Upgrade, Australian Embassy to Indonesia on Flickr

Pursuing monoculturalism has the potential to sabotage Australia’s relations with its ASEAN neighbours and the world at large. The Melbourne Declaration holds that Australia and its ASEAN partners should seek to foster cultural, educational and people-to-people ties. A policy of monoculturalism would likely mirror the White Australia Policy in practice, making building these ties to ASEAN difficult. For example, One Nation has proposed a policy that would prevent non-English speaking people from settling in Australia. This directly mimics the dictation test found in the Immigration Restriction Act which barred non-English speakers from migration to Australia. 

Under monoculturalism, migration would certainly be restricted. Restricting immigration severely burdens the capacity for Australia to form people-to-people ties. For example, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Universitas Islam Indonesia Hangga Fathana argues that student visa restrictions have the potential to create ill-will towards Australia in countries where many students decide to study in Australia. 

A recent example of anti-immigration sentiment fostering worse relations between nations is visible in Europe. Following the August 2026 mass border crossing in Ceuta, a Spanish exclave on the coast of the northern Rif region of Morocco, Italy’s far-right government led by Giorgia Meloni placed restrictions on Spanish travellers to Italy. Italy, which ordinarily allows free travel between Spain and Italy placed restrictions on movement, aimed at “combatting the threat of terrorism”, which led to a chorus of disapproval amongst European Union nations and institutions. For instance, Pedro Sánchez, the left-wing Spanish PM responded, by imposing border checks on Italian citizens. 

La sospensione temporanea di #Schengen con la Spagna è una scelta necessaria per tutelare la sicurezza dei nostri cittadini e difendere le frontiere europee. Una misura prevista dai trattati e resa oggi ineludibile. La crisi dei migranti a #Ceuta ci ricorda che la gestione dei…

— Antonio Tajani (@Antonio_Tajani) July 31, 2026

For a middle power such as Australia, the loss of economic growth could be detrimental to its ability to project power in ASEAN. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT), Australia’s relationship with ASEAN is based on “friendship, mutual trust, shared interests and a positive vision for our region’s future.” An isolationist Australia pursuing policies which actively marginalise ASEAN diasporas is not conducive to these principles. 

Monoculturalism is more than a simple ‘culture war’ issue. Although domestic political discussion may seem separate from international affairs, the issue of monoculturalism demonstrates how domestic politics have a significant impact on perceptions of the country and international trade. The consequences of such policy cannot be understated.