This article examines the state of scholarly research about multiculturalism, against the backdrop of the rise of rightwing populism and anti-immigrant sentiment across liberal democracies. Academic interest in multiculturalism has historically lagged political developments: multicultural policy emerged in Canada and Australia in the 1970s, but it was not until the 1990s that cultural diversity began attracting more sustained theoretical attention. Since then, much of the literature has been defined by the approach of ‘liberal multiculturalism’, which has sought to formulate multicultural principles from liberal premises. The emergence of the ‘Bristol School of Multiculturalism’, however, has seen more recent work focus increasingly on reconciling the claims of minorities with the terms of a shared national identity. This article examines some of the limits of the liberal tradition of multiculturalism: its treatment of the political questions raised by Muslims, the rights of formerly colonised Indigenous peoples, and the politics of multiculturalism. It then considers multiculturalism’s response to current challenges of nationalist populism. The prospects of multiculturalism may rely less upon its philosophical refinement and more upon its political articulation.

Australia’s experience of the COVID-19 pandemic has been widely perceived to have been a successful one, based on the relatively few number of lives lost to the virus compared to the rest of the world. There remain, nonetheless, serious ethical challenges at the heart of the Australian response to COVID-19. The broadly positive outcomes of Australia’s pandemic response mask more troubling developments within its political culture, and the costs it has imposed on its society. This article examines two concerns in particular: the normalisation of fear and emergency through the language and policy responses adopted by governments, and the significant diminution of individual freedoms and human rights.

Like the members of every nation, Australians have fairly stable ideas about the kind of people we are, to the point of there being a clich d sense of national identity. It goes something like this: we are fair and egalitarian; we are friendly and generous; we entertain a larrikin, irreverent streak.

Federal racial hatred legislation and the complaints-handling processes of the Australian Human Rights Commission ('AHRC') are currently the subjects of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee's 'Freedom of speech in Australia' inquiry, due to report by 28 February 2017, is giving particular attention to sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

Australia is frequently described as a success story of immigration and multiculturalism. This has been a part of recent Australian self-understanding and national myth-making. Yet, such a description may belie other realities. For all of Australian society's celebration of cultural diversity, the leadership of its major institutions remains largely devoid of cultural diversity. This article draws upon recent research into the cultural composition of groups of senior leaders in Australian business, politics, government and civil society. It examines the biases and barriers that may contribute to the status quo. It considers the organisational preconditions of better representation of cultural diversity in Australian leadership—namely, in the realms of leadership, systems and culture. The issue of cultural diversity and leadership, however, cannot be considered only in organisational terms. It also implicates larger societal questions about the current limits of Australian multiculturalism.

What we are seeing today is a real evolution of racist sentiment. Whereas once we would have understood racism - I'm using racism and xenophobia interchangeably here - only in the sense that a lot of racist sentiment is directed at those who are not regarded as part of Australian society, who come here as migrants. While in the past racism typically involved the doctrinal belief in superiority, its expression today need not be predicated on a view of racial superiority. I would say that racial hostility, even if it's born of ignorance or fear, could still rightly be described as racist. You don't need to necessarily subscribe to biological racist theories in order to do or say things that have racist implications. In other words, you don't need to be a card-carrying member of an organized racist movement in order to engage in xenophobia or racism. I only mention this because I believe that in our public discourse today there still remains a great deal of resistance to recognising or acknowledging or labelling things as xenophobic or racist, because we have in our heads that you need to be an egregious moral character or essentially a Nazi in order to be a racist. And I don't believe that is the right approach to these issues.

In October 1975, at a ceremony for the proclamation of the Racial Discrimination Act, then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam described the legislation as ‘a historic measure’, which aimed to ‘entrench new attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and minds of the people’.1) The Act was Australia’s first federal human rights and discrimination law. Enacted shortly after the formal abandonment of the White Australia policy, it was also a legislative expression of a new commitment to multiculturalism.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris, Race Discrimination Commissioner Dr Tim Soutphommasane looks at the role of Australiau0027s anti-discrimination legislation - and why society still needs section 18C.

In October 1975, at a ceremony for the proclamation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ('the RDA'), then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam described the legislation as 'a historic measure', which aimed to 'entrench new attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and minds of the people'. The RDA was Australia's first federal human rights and discrimination law. Enacted shortly after the formal abandonment of the White Australia policy, it was also a legislative expression of a new commitment to multiculturalism.

Few political debates have the effect of uniting Australians. Yet, in one sense, the contest over section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act did precisely that. There has been an emphatic affirmation of our commitment to racial tolerance.

The advent of Western societies with culturally diverse populations has inevitably been accompanied by demands by minority groups for the recognition of their unique identities and practices. Multiculturalism as an empirical phenomenon — the fact that a society contains a plurality of cultural groups — has prompted liberal-democratic states to adopt, to some degree, multiculturalism as public policy. It is in political culture as much as in policy, though, that multiculturalism has come to be felt by citizens. Claims for recognition — because they frequently involve disagreements about lifestyles, beliefs and practices — demand that a political community engages in a public dialogue. They provoke an enlarged democratic discussion, in which citizens consider minority identities and practices but also come to reflect on their community’s way of doing things.

Future citizens of a political community emerge from one of two sources. The first I dealt with in the previous chapter: the children of current citizens who, in due course, become citizens in their own right. The second source of citizens forms the subject of this chapter: the immigrants who enter a country to settle and start a new life. If a political community integrates children into its public culture through civic education, how must it integrate immigrants? From a liberal nationalist perspective, policies relating to immigration should be determined, at least in part, by considerations about how best to maintain a national identity and culture. The underlying principle should be one of national self-determination. A liberal state has a legitimate interest in ensuring its institutions and practices are expressions of the culture of a particular national community.