Divide and Conquer: From Tax Politics to Cultural Politics – A New Level of Political Cynicism (2026)

Back in 2019, I wrote that Australia had reached a crossroads. At the time, the concern was Labor’s tax agenda, which I believed deliberately pitted younger Australians against their parents and grandparents by portraying aspiration and financial security as something to resent rather than admire.

Today, in 2026, that strategy has evolved. It is no longer just about tax. Division has become the defining political strategy.

Australians are now routinely divided by generation, gender, wealth, race, climate, identity and postcode. Rather than bringing people together around shared values and common purpose, politics increasingly encourages Australians to view one another as competing interest groups.

The tragedy is that many people still fail to recognise the trap.

Governments benefit when communities are divided. A population arguing amongst itself is far less likely to scrutinise those exercising power. While Australians fight each other over cultural and political fault lines, attention is diverted from government performance, economic management and declining living standards.

One of the reasons I remain hopeful is because we’ve been here before.

In 2019, Australians were presented with a politics that, in my view, sought to divide generations through tax policy. The electorate rejected it. They looked beyond the rhetoric and refused to reward what many saw as an attempt to pit younger Australians against their parents and grandparents. Whatever else can be said about that election, Australians demonstrated the political wisdom to reject a campaign that relied heavily on division.

Which raises an important question: what changed?

How have we gone from an electorate that rejected division in 2019 to one where division now seems woven into almost every political debate?

The years that followed changed Australia profoundly. The pandemic reshaped how we interacted with one another. Social media increasingly rewarded outrage over thoughtful discussion. Identity politics became more entrenched. Cost-of-living pressures fuelled frustration and made people more susceptible to messages that encouraged them to blame fellow Australians rather than question those making the decisions.

At the same time, the centre-right became increasingly fractured. Instead of uniting around the broad principles they shared, too much energy was spent fighting one another. The rise of One Nation reflects genuine frustration felt by many voters, but it has also fractured the non-Labor vote. Whether intentional or not, the practical effect has been to weaken the broader conservative movement while making Labor’s path to government easier.

One concerning trend in recent political discourse is the idea that certain major parties should simply be “killed off” or eliminated altogether. That sentiment is not healthy for a democracy.

A functioning democracy depends on contestable ideas and a credible opposition. Voters don’t benefit when political competition is replaced with a desire to remove opponents from the system entirely. They benefit when parties are challenged, held to account, and ultimately judged at the ballot box.

When politics shifts from persuasion to elimination, division has already taken hold.

That is why I believe divide and conquer has reached an entirely new level.

Labor benefits when Australians are divided socially, economically and culturally. At the same time, divisions within the centre-right have weakened the electoral alternative. Instead of recognising the bigger picture, too many voters have become consumed by battles within their own side. The public often mistakes this for healthy political competition when, in reality, it simply entrenches those already in power.

The Australia I grew up believing in wasn’t perfect, but it valued fairness, aspiration, family and the idea that hard work should be rewarded. It recognised that generations should support one another, not resent one another. Political disagreement existed, but it wasn’t built on encouraging Australians to see each other as enemies.

That is why I believe the real crossroads remain before us.

The choice is no longer simply between competing tax policies. It is whether we continue rewarding political movements that profit from division, or whether we demand leaders who unite Australians around shared values, practical solutions and a common purpose.

History shows that divided societies rarely flourish. Strong societies are built on trust, mutual respect and a willingness to disagree without tearing each other apart.

In 2019, Australians recognised the trap and rejected it. Seven years later, the trap has become far more sophisticated. It is no longer confined to one election campaign or one policy. It has seeped into our political culture.

If we continue allowing ourselves to be divided by generation, by gender, by race, by wealth or by political tribe we will keep strengthening those who benefit most from our division.

Wasting our time fighting each other achieves nothing. Recognising the trap and demanding politics that unites rather than divides is one of the most important challenges facing Australia today.

What Are We Really Debating?

I like to challenge people’s thinking. I’m naturally curious about why people think the way they do, so I often share ideas that provoke discussion. Sometimes that blows up in my face, but it also provides valuable insight into people’s reasoning and occasionally leads to genuinely thoughtful conversations. Thankfully, there are still people on social media who are willing to think beyond slogans.

A surprising number of people responded to my post yesterday about a Sunni Ashura procession in Australia by saying they don’t want to live in a multicultural country, with several claiming it goes against everything they believe in.

The interesting thing is that my original post wasn’t actually about multiculturalism. It was about the unequal treatment of religions. I was disappointed that very few people addressed that central point—the apparent inconsistency in how expressions of different faiths are treated in the public square. Instead, the discussion quickly shifted into anger about Muslims.

But those responses raised a different issue that I think is worth exploring.

Whether we like it or not, Australia is a multicultural society. So what exactly is the alternative being proposed? And what is it about multiculturalism that people believe is fundamentally incompatible with their values? I ask because people from many different cultures and faiths live together peacefully in Australia every day.

Some will point to One Nation’s call for a “monoculture”. But how do you realistically achieve that after decades of immigration from every corner of the world, with multiculturalism now woven into the fabric of Australian society? What would that even look like in practice? That part is rarely, if ever, explained.

And even One Nation has stated that freedom of religion is a fundamental democratic right, just as important as freedom of speech. If that principle is applied consistently, then Sunni Muslims remain free to hold Ashura processions.

So is this really about multiculturalism? Or is it about not wanting to live alongside people from particular religious backgrounds?

They are different questions, and I think it’s important we don’t pretend they’re the same.

Perhaps the questions we should all be asking are these: What do we actually mean when we say we oppose multiculturalism? What practical alternative are we proposing? Are we objecting to a system of cultural diversity, or simply to the presence of certain groups within it? And if it is the latter, are we willing to say that openly?

If we’re going to have this debate, let’s at least be honest about what we’re really debating.

𝐍𝐎: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐫-𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭.

A number of claims circulating on social media suggest that the current Governor-General, Sam Mostyn, is acting as an “Albanese stooge” and should intervene to remove the elected government. That reflects a misunderstanding of both the office and Australia’s constitutional system.

There is no evidence for any suggestion of personal alignment or political direction between the Governor-General and the Prime Minister. More importantly, it is not how the system operates. The Governor-General is not a political enforcer and does not have the authority to dismiss a government simply on the basis that some members of the public believe it is performing poorly.

Australia is a constitutional democracy. Governments are formed through elections and must maintain the confidence of the House of Representatives. If they lose that confidence, they can fall. Otherwise, they remain in office until the electorate has its say at the ballot box.

While many Australians, myself included, may be dissatisfied with the current government, that dissatisfaction is not in itself a constitutional trigger for vice-regal intervention.

The Governor-General’s reserve powers do exist, but they are strictly limited and only relevant in exceptional circumstances where the constitutional system itself is breaking down. They are not a mechanism for responding to political disagreement or perceived poor performance.

Claims that today’s situation is comparable to 1975 misunderstand what actually occurred. The dismissal of the Whitlam Government arose from a rare constitutional impasse involving the Senate blocking supply, creating a situation where the government could not secure appropriation to fund its operations. It was a structural breakdown in parliamentary function, not routine political discontent.

Even then, the use of reserve powers remains one of the most contested events in Australian constitutional history precisely because those powers are intended to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.

Today’s environment bears no resemblance to that crisis. Disagreement with policy, leadership, or competence does not create a constitutional basis for dismissal.

It is also important to recognise that the Governor-General is not a partisan actor. The office is routinely drawn into political debate online in ways that misrepresent its role. In practice, the Governor-General acts on ministerial advice and operates within well-established constitutional conventions designed to ensure political neutrality.

Australia’s system is built on democratic accountability, not vice-regal intervention. If people want a change of government, the mechanism is an election, not calls for the Crown’s representative to override the result of one.

If people are unhappy with the government, perhaps they need to ask a simple question: were they part of putting it into office? If so, that is how democracy works. If not, their dissatisfaction is still best directed through the proper channels towards the government itself and through the democratic process at the next election. Either way, democratic systems depend on accountability for our choices, including the governments we help bring to power, and the responsibility to engage with those outcomes constructively rather than seeking constitutional shortcuts.

𝐌𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐯𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚 — 𝐎𝐫 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐖𝐞 𝐁𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦

Debates about multiculturalism in Australia often turn on a simple but misunderstood question: did Australia move from a monoculture to a multicultural society, or has it always been culturally plural beneath a dominant framework?

The answer depends heavily on what we mean by “culture” in the first place.

Australia’s historical cultural foundation: Anglo-Celtic dominance

Historically, Australia was overwhelmingly shaped by settlers from the British Isles. The dominant cultural framework is most accurately described as Anglo-Celtic, referring to people of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh ancestry.

When historians and sociologists refer to Australia’s “traditional monoculture,” they are usually not claiming complete ethnic uniformity. Rather, they are pointing to a dominant civic and institutional culture built on:

• English as the national language
• British common law
• Westminster-style parliamentary democracy
• Social norms derived from British and Irish settler society
• Educational and religious institutions rooted in European tradition

In that sense, “monoculture” is better understood as cultural dominance rather than ethnic exclusivity.

It is also important to recognise that Australia has never been culturally empty or uniform. Indigenous Australians maintained continuous and diverse cultures for tens of thousands of years, and migration from Europe and Asia has occurred throughout the nation’s modern history.

A more precise framing would be:

Australia’s historical cultural framework was predominantly Anglo-Celtic in character, forming the dominant institutional and social norm-set within a diverse population.

What “monoculture” actually implies

A key problem in the debate is that “monoculture” is often reduced to symbolic markers such as a flag, a set of laws, or general slogans about equality and effort.

But monoculture, when used meaningfully in social or historical analysis, is far broader than that.

It refers to a shared cultural operating system, including:

• Norms around behaviour and public conduct
• Expectations about responsibility, civility, and trust
• Informal social rules about fairness and reciprocity
• Shared understandings of merit, effort, and reward
• Institutional continuity that shapes how people interact beyond formal law

In this sense, monoculture is not simply “one flag, one legal system, equality of opportunity, and reward for effort,” as it is sometimes simplified. Those are components of a civic framework, but they do not fully capture the deeper cultural patterns that govern everyday life in a society.

This distinction matters because it separates legal structure from loved culture.

Why the term “monoculture” is contested

The idea of monoculture becomes controversial because it can imply total cultural uniformity, which has never been true in practice.

Critics argue:

• Australia has always contained multiple cultural streams, especially Indigenous cultures and migrant communities
• Culture is not only ethnicity; it includes language, law, institutions, and shared civic behaviour
• Even during periods of strong Anglo-Celtic dominance, cultural variation existed between regions, classes, and communities

So when people debate “monocultural Australia,” they are often talking past each other, one side referring to dominant civic culture, the other hearing ethnic exclusivity.

The Farley framing: “culture blind” on identity, strict on behaviour

A recent attempt to clarify this concept comes from One Nation MP David Farley, who argued:

“What we’re trying to put the message out is that racially, faith-wise, we’re blind, but we’re not blind when it comes to behaviour and habit… So what is monoculture? It’s one culture, the Australian culture…”

He further suggests that migrants become:

“Australian with an Italian heritage… Australian Iraqi with a different heritage, but they’re Australians now… It’s about Australia first.”

On the surface, this is an attempt to define monoculture not by ethnicity or religion, but by behavioural conformity to a shared national identity.

The contradiction at the centre of the argument

This framing introduces a key tension.

Farley rejects race and faith as defining factors (“we’re blind”), yet simultaneously argues for a single monoculture defined by behaviour, habit, and a unified “Australian culture.”

The contradiction lies here:

• If culture is defined by shared behaviour and civic norms, then Australia already operates under that framework through its legal system, institutions, and citizenship requirements
• But if culture must be actively “protected” from certain behaviours and habits, then culture is no longer neutral or already unified, it becomes something selectively enforced and culturally gatekept

In other words:

• Either Australia already has a shared civic culture (making “monoculture” descriptive, not aspirational)
• Or Australia does not fully share that culture, requiring intervention to preserve or enforce it

Both positions cannot be fully true at the same time without redefining what “Australian culture” means in practice.

Multicultural Australia: continuity or transformation?

Modern multiculturalism does not mean the absence of a dominant legal or civic framework. Instead, it describes a society where multiple cultural identities coexist within shared institutions and laws.

Importantly, multiculturalism in Australia has generally meant:

• Cultural expression is permitted within a common legal framework
• Citizenship is based on civic participation rather than ethnicity
• Immigration has diversified the population while preserving national institutions

So the key question is not whether culture changes, it clearly does, but how deeply demographic change reshapes the underlying civic culture.

In contemporary migration patterns in Australia, India has become the largest source of new migrants, overtaking the United Kingdom in recent intake flows. However, the UK-born population remains one of the larger established migrant communities due to earlier waves of migration.

This shift reflects a broader transition away from historically Europe-dominant migration patterns toward a more globally diverse intake.

Does demographic change equal cultural change?

This is where public debate often becomes imprecise.

While migration has significantly diversified Australia, the country remains anchored in long-established institutions and legal frameworks derived from its Anglo-democratic foundations.

At the same time, demographic change is not culturally neutral. It influences:

• Language diversity in public life
• Religious and cultural practices in major cities
• Food, media, and community structures
• Social expectations around identity and belonging

So the more accurate question is not whether culture changes, but how it changes, and at what pace.

So what happens to “monoculture”?

If monoculture is defined strictly as ethnic homogeneity, Australia has not been monocultural for a very long time.

If it is defined as a dominant civic and institutional culture, then the picture becomes more complex:

• The legal and political framework remains stable and largely unchanged in its Anglo-democratic foundations
• The social and cultural expression of society is increasingly diverse and plural
• The shared national identity is evolving rather than disappearing

So the more accurate conclusion is not that monoculture has been replaced, but that it has been reframed, contested, and rebalanced.

Final thought

The real tension in debates about multiculturalism is not between monoculture and multiculturalism as fixed states, but between competing definitions of what “culture” actually means:

• A shared civic framework that already exists in law and institutions
• A behavioural and identity-based concept that some argue must be actively maintained

In modern Australia, these ideas overlap—but they do not always align.

So rather than framing the future in terms of monoculture, it may be more useful to think in terms of civic nationalism: a form of nationhood grounded in shared values, laws, institutions, civic loyalty, and citizenship, rather than race or ethnicity. Within that framework, shared language and national symbols such as the flag remain important as unifying civic anchors, alongside a common commitment to Australia’s democratic institutions and way of life.