It’s not surprising that Morrison is no multicultural enthusiast. He represents an electorate in the Sutherland Shire, not known for being a beacon of diversity. Back in 2011, the Herald reported that Morrison urged his Coalition colleagues to adopt an anti-Muslim strategy to capitalise on fears about terrorism - a strategy rebuffed by the shadow cabinet. As a former hardline immigration minister, Morrison isn’t someone associated with cosmopolitan values. Loading To be fair, those on the Australian centre-right of politics tend to be suspicious of diversity. But it wasn’t always like this. Malcolm Fraser was an ardent supporter of multiculturalism when he was PM. Only from the 1980s did conservative hostility to multiculturalism harden. Historian Geoffrey Blainey, who sparked a debate about Asian immigration, regarded it as leading to a “nation of tribes”. John Howard held similar views. During his decade in office, Howard avoided using the word multicultural, believing that Australian culture is singular. It’s hard to see how any national culture could ever be one-dimensional. But for Howard there was a cultural unity in Gallipoli, Don Bradman and white picket fences. Howard’s view became centre-right orthodoxy. While Turnbull didn’t share it, Morrison does.

And has for some time. Back in 2013, as shadow minister for immigration, Morrison called for “a new post-multiculturalism agenda”. He acknowledged his personal reluctance to use the term multiculturalism because it “runs the risk of fuelling division and polarising the

debate”. Quoting at length the 19th century NSW premier Henry Parkes, Morrison argued that “Australians share a special kinship”. History buffs will know that Parkes appealed in the 1890s to the “crimson thread of kinship” when he called for the colonies to federate. Parkes sought to define a new Australian nation by white British blood. Police stand between far-right and anti-racism protesters at the St Kilda rally. Credit:Darrian Traynor Morrison’s attitude to multiculturalism and identity has now come to the fore. Earlier this month, he responded to the far-right rally in St Kilda by condemning “ugly racial protests”. If he believed in multiculturalism, he probably would have come out stronger in naming the racist hatred of white supremacists. He wouldn’t have left it open for some to think he was going soft on neo-Nazi extremists. The overwhelming revulsion at white supremacists on the beach shows the Australian public isn’t so conflicted. Multiculturalism has become a central feature of the national identity. Year after year, the Scanlon Foundation’s survey on social cohesion finds that about 85 per cent of us

agree that multiculturalism is good for the country. That’s about as close to unanimous as you can get (and roughly 25 percentage points higher than the number who voted yes for marriage equality).

If anything, now should be the time for political leaders to reinforce the success of our diverse society. There’s a need to counter the alarming growth of far-right nationalism and creeping normalisation of racism. Which brings me back to the question: what’s the difference between us being a successful migrant nation and a successful multicultural society? To say a place is a migrant country doesn’t really say much about how migrants are accepted. A country could demand, for instance, that migrants discard all their cultural baggage and speak only English once they get here. You can take in migrants but insist on assimilation. That’s what we had in the years immediately following World War II. Declaring that our society is multicultural signals something different. It says that our country isn’t threatened by diversity, but is confident enough to celebrate it. This isn’t about cultural relativism. At no time has a policy of multiculturalism sanctioned anything that runs counter to individual rights, the rule of law and democracy. The idea of multiculturalism simply says that there isn’t only one way someone can be authentically Australian. It says that everyone shouldn’t just be treated equally, but also be comfortable in their own skin. It says that being Australian shouldn’t prevent anyone from also being free to express their cultural heritage and identity. Now why would such freedom and liberty be so threatening?

Tim Soutphommasane is a former Race Discrimination Commissioner and author of

the forthcoming book, On Hate.