For most of human history, migration has been one of civilisation's great success stories.
People moved in search of safety, freedom and opportunity. They brought with them new skills, traditions and ideas. Over time they became part of their adopted countries while retaining pride in their heritage. Italians became Australian. Indians became British. Hungarians became American. Their grandchildren often thought of themselves simply as Australians, Britons or Americans with an interesting family history.
Immigration enriched nations because integration worked.
So why has the debate become so bitter?
The answer, I believe, lies not in immigration itself, but in the scale, speed and philosophy that have accompanied it over the past two decades.
The Difference Between Immigration and Multiculturalism
These terms are often treated as though they mean the same thing. They don't.
Immigration is simply the movement of people.
Multiculturalism is a political philosophy about how those different cultures should coexist.
Historically, Western countries expected newcomers to integrate into the national culture. They learned the language, accepted the laws and institutions, and gradually adopted the values that defined their new home. They could celebrate Chinese New Year, Diwali or Easter while still sharing a common civic identity.
Today's multicultural model often sends a different message.
Rather than encouraging integration into a shared national culture, it increasingly emphasises preserving distinct cultural identities, with governments recognising, funding and sometimes negotiating separately with different communities.
Instead of one national conversation, society risks becoming many parallel conversations.
Numbers Matter
Migration has never been purely about percentages.
A family moving into a suburb naturally adapts to the existing community.
A thousand families moving together are able to recreate much of the society they left behind.
That is not a criticism; it is simply human nature.
Small migrant communities tend to integrate more readily because interaction with the wider community is unavoidable.
Very large communities can become largely self-contained. Schools, businesses, media, places of worship and social lives increasingly revolve around the community itself. Integration becomes slower, and sometimes optional.
At the same time, long-established residents often find rapid demographic change unsettling. Whether those concerns are justified or not, they are real. When change happens faster than people can comfortably absorb it, social trust can weaken.
Politics Makes the Problem Worse
Large communities also represent significant voting blocs.
Political parties inevitably begin tailoring policies and messages to particular communities rather than appealing to the nation as a whole.
Identity politics flourishes.
Instead of asking, "What is good for Australia?", politicians increasingly ask, "What will this community think?"
The result is predictable.
Citizens begin seeing themselves not simply as Australians, Britons or Americans, but as members of competing cultural constituencies.
That is a dangerous direction for any democracy.
Europe and Britain Offer Warnings
Across much of Europe, immigration has become one of the defining political issues of our time.
Parties advocating stricter immigration controls have gained support in countries including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden as voters express concerns about integration, housing pressures, crime, and national identity.
Britain provides another example of growing cultural division.
Large pro-Palestinian demonstrations have regularly filled London's streets since the Hamas attacks of October 2023, while counter-protests have emerged from groups concerned about national identity and social cohesion. These competing demonstrations have become symbols of a broader debate over what it means to be British in an increasingly diverse society.
Whether one agrees with either side is beside the point.
The fact that these divisions have become so visible should concern us all.
Australia's Debate
Australia is now confronting the same questions.
Pauline Hanson reignited national debate by arguing that Australia should aspire to be "multiracial but monocultural"—a phrase that immediately generated confusion because people attached very different meanings to the word "monoculture."
Many critics interpreted the term as implying cultural uniformity or rejection of diversity.
Supporters argued that what Hanson was really describing was a society united by common values, laws and civic identity while remaining ethnically diverse.
The terminology obscured the underlying issue.
Konstantin Kisin Explains It Better
One of the clearest explanations comes not from politicians but from British commentator Konstantin Kisin.
He distinguishes between a country made up of many ethnic backgrounds and a country united by one set of civic values.
People may eat different foods, celebrate different festivals and come from every corner of the globe.
But they should still share a commitment to democracy, equality before the law, freedom of speech, religious liberty, and loyalty to the nation that welcomed them.
That is not ethnic conformity.
It is civic unity.
It is also very close to what many Australians understood multiculturalism to mean when the policy was first introduced.
Diversity Needs a Centre
The debate is often presented as a choice between diversity and intolerance.
That is a false choice.
Successful societies can be wonderfully diverse.
But diversity needs a centre of gravity.
Every successful nation requires a common language, shared institutions, mutual obligations and a widely accepted understanding of the rules by which everyone lives.
Without that shared foundation, diversity gradually becomes fragmentation.
People begin living beside one another rather than together.
Rebuilding Social Cohesion
If we want a cohesive society, then the answer is not to abandon immigration. Australia has been enriched by generations of migrants, and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to be.
What needs to change is the framework within which immigration occurs.
Governments should place renewed emphasis on integration rather than separation. Every child should leave school with a strong understanding of Australia's history, democratic institutions and civic values. English should remain the common language of public life, and every new migrant should be encouraged and supported to become proficient in it, because a shared language is the foundation of mutual understanding.
Government should also resist the temptation to divide Australians into competing communities. Public funding should be based on need and benefit to the whole community, not on ethnicity, religion or cultural background. The law should apply equally to every citizen, and public policy should reinforce the principle that Australians are treated as individuals rather than members of competing identity groups.
Equally important is restoring a sense of national pride. New citizens should be encouraged to embrace not only the opportunities Australia offers, but also the responsibilities of citizenship. Celebrating one's heritage and embracing an Australian identity are not contradictory—they are complementary. The overwhelming success of earlier waves of migration demonstrates that people can honour their family traditions while proudly calling themselves Australian.
Finally, governments must recognise that the pace of migration matters as much as the numbers themselves. Communities need time to absorb new arrivals, schools and infrastructure need time to adapt, and newcomers need the opportunity to integrate into the broader society. Immigration levels should be set not only by economic demand but also by the nation's capacity to successfully integrate those who arrive.
Australia's strength has never been its ethnic uniformity. It has been its ability to bring together people from every corner of the globe under a shared commitment to democracy, freedom, equality before the law and mutual respect.
That is the real Australian model worth preserving.
It is not a monoculture in the sense of everyone looking the same, worshipping the same way or abandoning their heritage. It is a common civic culture—a nation of many backgrounds united by one set of values. If we can rediscover that principle, Australia can continue to enjoy the benefits of immigration without sacrificing the social cohesion that has made it one of the world's most successful societies.
