Good evening, everyone. Can I start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which we meet, the Wurundjeri and Bunurong Peoples, and I pay my respect to their elders past and present. And I also acknowledge any First Nations people here with us today. 

Australia’s story of multiculturalism begins with the rich and enduring cultures of First Nations peoples, our first cultures. More than 65,000 years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have practiced deep traditions of language, law, kinship and connection to country. These are the first expressions of belonging on this continent. These are the foundations of belonging, respect and diversity upon which modern Australia stands, and they remind us – they remind us – that diversity is not a new phenomenon in Australia – it is, indeed, ancient. 

I’d also like to thank the Alfred Deakin Institute and Deakin’s distinguished Professor Fethi Mansouri for the invitation to speak tonight. In the nine years that I’ve been a member of parliament I have not once heard Kimberly [indistinct] quoted. And so, it brings back fond memories. 

It is also an honour to joining the ranks of Alfred Deakin Institute orators, many of those who have helped to shape the social discourse of our nation. 

I also extend my thanks to Vice-Chancellor Professor Iain Martin for hosting. 

Can I also acknowledge the important work that this university and this annual event does, progressing not only conversations about but inspiring true substantive change in citizenship, diversity, inclusion and globalisation. 

Now, this oration has a reputation – but a good one – a reputation for not shying away from the difficult conversations that we need to have. It’s a platform for an honest, real discussion and debate about critical national issues. Substantive discussions which are as complex as the namesake of this oration himself. Let’s talk about that, shall we? 

Now, as many of you know, Alfred Deakin was our federation’s first Attorney-General and second Prime Minister, known as the Father of Federation. A page from this university’s own website describes – says of Deakin that he was certainly one of Australia’s most significant Prime Ministers having played a pivotal role in the creation of the Australian federation and the establishment of many institutions that are central to Australia’s democracy. Indeed, he did. 

But his legacy is also a very complex one. When Alfred Deakin rose at the 1898 Federation Conference, he spoke of creating – and I quote – “a union which will endure from age to age, a perpetual security for the peace, freedom and progress of the people of Australia.” And just a few years later in 1901 Deakin spoke of an Australia that was united, a country where its members can intermix, intermarry and associate without degradation on either side. A people possessing the same general cast of character, tone of thought, the same constitutional training and traditions, a people qualified to live under this constitution, qualified to use it without abusing it and to develop themselves under it to the full height and extent of their capacity.” 

Those words, however, were spoken in the context of the Immigration Restriction Act, better known as the White Australia policy, of which Deakin was one of the architects. In the same passage he qualifies those who can develop themselves under the constitution to the full height and extent of their capacity as those who belong to a united race – a white race. Unity of race, claimed Deakin, is an absolute essential to the unity of Australia. 

Now, those words remind us that the national identity we inherited was built on a vision of white Australia that excluded most of humanity. Deakin’s call for a united race was not a call for harmony but for homogeneity, for sameness over solidarity. Yet the very constitution he praised as since carried us further than he could ever have imagined. It has allowed us to redefine unity not as racial purity but as a shared purpose. Indeed, pluralism, though not explicitly stated, underpins our constitution. It’s present in the federal system and in constitutional principles, most notably section 116, which allows for the free expression and practice of diverse religions. 

Australia’s colonial history is peppered with racism, sometimes violent, sometimes overt, but fairly consistently institutionalised. During World War II when the United States sent their troops to bolster Australia’s efforts, the commonwealth government quickly passed a law segregating the African-American troops and prohibiting any fraternising between them and white Australian women. 

Now, we may gasp in horror at the thought of anything like that happening today, but it was only in 2016 when I was first elected to parliament that we were having a debate about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and whether or not people had the right to offend or humiliate their fellow Australians on the basis of race. And it was not long before that, in fact, in 2015 that the federal parliament was actually considering a proposal to separate women who wear the niqab or the burqa from the public viewing gallery. 

These are just some examples of what the late Professor Laksiri – or Laki, as he was known - Jayasuriya - and others have reflected on as the legacy of white Australia – an imagining of Australia as a racially pure nation. And I quote Professor Jayasuriya. He says, “The legacy made ghosts of a white Australia and British Australia as a political narrative which continues to haunt all aspects of Australian public life.” 

It is, of course, a false imagining, one that erases First Nations people and the 65,000 years of living and caring for the land and sea, their cultures, their languages, their very being. And yet despite it being a false imagining it has survived in the Australian imagination as witnessed by the recent protests by white nationalists, and it persists, albeit in more subtle ways, in our institutions that remain predominantly white Anglo Saxon both in their composition and in their structures. 

Multicultural policy introduced in 1973 by the then Labor government coincided with the removal of the last vestiges of the white Australia policy. Although I was young, I remember it well. It heralded a new era in Australia, and it sent a profound message to migrants like my parents who had migrated to Australia just a few years earlier. My parents arrived from Egypt to the Bonegilla Migrant Training Camp in Albury Wodonga in 1969, and they arrived to a very different Australia. We later settled in the western suburbs of Sydney, and despite having qualified as a textiles engineer my father, like many migrants, ended up taking a job for which he was overqualified, though no less grateful – he became a bus driver. And together my parents built a good life for themselves and for their three children. 

Growing up we didn’t celebrate our culture. We didn’t wear our Egyptian heritage proudly in the way we dressed or in the food that we ate. Instead, we lived it quietly behind closed doors and away from public eyes. We listened to Umm Kulthum and Abdel Wahab in the quiet of our living room. We fasted Ramadan by politely refusing food and drink, making excuses in order to avoid having to explain our fast and answering the inevitable question, “Not even water?” You all know what I mean. 

We celebrated Eid by indulging in the sweets that my father baked on the last day of fasting. Azza became Anne. Hamida became Mandy. Mahmoud became Mike. Hossam became Sam. Rhonda, my sister, stayed as Rhonda. We accepted Aly with a “y” as our surname, because el Serougi was too long to fit on any forms. And I forgot the first song I ever learned and the first language I ever spoke. 

Then along came SBS, and the establishment of SBS brought Arabic language back into our home and ethnic radio gave us paths to celebrate our cultural traditions more openly – as long as they were colourful and tasted like chicken. And as long as they were colourful and tasted like chicken, they would be tolerated, mostly through gritted teeth, but they would be tolerated. 

Despite its intent, the introduction of multiculturalism in the 1970s evolved as an expression of multiculturalism that not only favoured but solely focused on celebrations of food, dance and colourful costume. This expression of multiculturalism was nice and fun but has a number of side effects. Firstly, it devalues diversity by reducing it to the performative expression of culture and tradition, conveniently circumventing any meaningful discussion of the real economic and social benefits that diversity brings. 

Secondly, it, in effect, imposes a conditional form of multiculturalism, that kind of gritted-teeth tolerance that, "You are welcome here,” as I said, “as long as your food tastes good, your celebrations are colourful, and your music is pleasant to the ears.” But any questioning, any speaking out, any disruptive participation in any practice of citizenship will not be tolerated. Instead, acts of citizenship afforded to the broader community are viewed as acts of defiance when performed by the other and are met with cries of, “Go back to where you came from,” and “Love Australia or leave it.” 

Thirdly, it ignores the challenging that migrants, refugees and people of colour face in Australia – racism, both direct and institutionalised – the lack of recognition for skills and qualifications, the stark absence of representation of ethnic and people of colour in positions of leadership, lack of access to services, intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age and disability. 

Now, while it is useful to dwell on the past and the historical evolution of multiculturalism in Australia, it is perhaps more useful to ask how far have we come, what has changed, and what has remained the same. And to answer those questions with honesty. Because the truth is that the work of inclusion is never finished, and it is in continual evolution, one that must be constantly revised, reviewed and, indeed, reimagined. 

And the frameworks we inherited, the policies, the institutions, even the language must evolve as our nation itself evolves and matures. Multiculturalism as a philosophy that underpins policy and service delivery and, indeed, nation building remains at times contested, at times an enigma and at times, particularly times of crisis, exceptionally fragile. By its nature, multiculturalism needs to be fluid and amenable to change so that it remains a relevant concept able to underpin policies that are meaningful to current populations. As such, the concept of multiculturalism articulated in 1973 has limited application to a modern Australia and the second and third generation migrants and their children where households themselves are multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-faith. 

Take, for example, my own family, that in two generations now has members who have Egyptian, Bosnian, Canadian, Burmese, Mauritian, Somali, Irish and First Nations heritage. The latest addition to our family – my great nephew; Musab he’s so cute – he has Egyptian, Bosnian and Somali heritage. As his aunt, I’m thinking about his first Harmony Day at school – what exactly is he going to wear and what food is he going to take? 

Importantly, multiculturalism also needs to be a concept able to underpin a developing discourse of nationhood. As a nation that is geopolitically situated in a predominantly south Asian region with historical kinship ties to the UK, Australia has often grappled with being “not Asian” but “in Asia”. A mature discourse of nationhood recognises that we are shaped not just by our cultural kinship but by our geopolitical and strategic location. 

Now, detractors of multiculturalism – most notably Blainey – argue that multiculturalism is divisive and threatens national cohesion. What they actually mean is that multiculturalism challenges the concept of nationhood as in incumbent an imagining of an Australian identity in terms of a similar culture – one nation born from and of a single cultural Judeo-Christian tradition. One nation under God. Multiculturalism should challenge these ideas. When it doesn’t, when it prioritises celebration, when it reduces diversity to a nice trope, when it does not address substantive issues, when it perpetuates or at best allows institutionalised racism to continue, then it is not just a missed opportunity; it is an institutionalised legacy of white Australia. 

And so tonight I’m here to issue a call to all Australians. This is a moment to reimagine multiculturalism, a multiculturalism that is befitting of the title of the most successful multicultural nation in the world. 

So, what does a reimagined multiculturalism look like? Well, first and foremost it must acknowledge the unique status of our First Nations people. Secondly, it must define multicultural Australia not as a monolith of common cultural values or even multiple common cultural values but through equality of participation in political, social and economic life. Hence its premise must not be cultural pluralism but democratic pluralism recognising that difference is a hallmark of democracy and in doing so it must also recognise that a diverse society necessitates the adoption of diverse approaches to ensuring that all people can participate fully in social, political and economic life. And on this, I draw very heavily from the late Professor Laksiri Jayasuriya’s writing. 

Thirdly, it must actively work to break down structural barriers to participation. The government this year is the most diverse in the history of Australia with the highest representation of non-Western European ethnic people, First Nations members and senators. And despite this, despite this representation at some of the highest levels of power, too many individuals still describe the bamboo ceiling as a structural barrier. Studies have shown that applicants with Arabic names, Chinese names, Indian names and even Indigenous-sounding names get far less interviews, particularly when they apply for leadership positions. The 2025 Board Diversity index showed that 91 per cent of ASX 300 directors are of an Anglo Celtic background. Only 5.9 per cent of all directors are of a non-European background. 

And then, of course, there is the issue of underutilisation of migrant skills and qualifications. As the daughter of a qualified engineer who drove buses for a living, I cannot help but ask why this is still the migrant story in this country. 

Finally, our reimagined multiculturalism must recognise this simple but profound fact – that our nation’s character and identity is multicultural. A land that proudly boasts the longest living culture in the world – our First Nations – followed by generations of those who have come across the seas to share in our boundless plains, be they convicts, colonial settlers, Chinese workers during the gold rush, Afghan cameleers, post-war migrants, refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, non-Western Europeans who dreamed of a better life for their children or business men and women from the subcontinent, Australia is a nation of immigrants. Multicultural is not a descriptor for those who look like me. It’s not a ‘semi-colon and’ it’s not an afterthought, it’s not a postscript, it’s not a, “Oh, we’ll get to you once we’ve done this for the mainstream.” My friends, multicultural is the mainstream. 

Successful multiculturalism also makes economic sense. In 2019 Deloitte modelling commissioned by SBS suggested that the economic dividend from Australia having a more inclusive society could be worth up to $12.7 billion annually through higher productivity. Sorry, I got a bit lost with that sentence. That’s because I didn’t write it, see. I’ll be honest. 

So having defined what a reimagined multicultural might look like, how do we then progress to embed this reimagined multiculturalism into the structures and institutions of our democracy. We now have for the first time, as you know, a stand-alone Minister for Multicultural Affairs in cabinet. This elevation – a deliberative act by the Prime Minister – signals that multiculturalism is no longer a marginal portfolio, but it is essential to Australia’s future. I must say, I’m incredibly humbled to be appointed to this position. 

I’m equally excited to have launched the new Office for Multicultural Affairs. With the Office established in July we now have a strong platform and a real means to make a difference in the way in which we approach multiculturalism. The Office has been created on the belief that a modern multicultural Australia provides an opportunity for all Australians to participate fully and contribute meaningfully. 

To do that, the office brings together key functions to make sure our efforts work seamlessly and to better serve those who need them, and it will drive that national approach through government and through the public sector. 

As Minister for Multicultural Affairs, I was also happy to convene the Australian Multicultural Council, and I recognise that there are some members sitting here and I also recognise the legendary Hass Dellal, who has long contributed to the discourse and the progress of multiculturalism in this country. 

Now, the Australian Multicultural Council serves a strong link between communities and government. And at this meeting that we had in August, we focused on priority areas that can provide advice to government in achieving our shared vision for multiculturalism. Importantly, I’ve also tasked the AMC to look into the barriers that migrants face as they enter the Australian workforce. Let’s change that migrant story, shall we? 

But governments can only do so much. For the office and my ministerial appointment to truly succeed in embedding this revised and revisited concept of multiculturalism requires a cultural shift. It requires a new discursive construction of multicultural Australia and a narrative that brings Australians along with us. Every Australian, regardless of where they or their parents were born, should feel a sense of belonging. That means feeling safe in their communities, having the opportunities as well as the capacity – not just the opportunities, as well as the capacity – to fully participate in all aspects of life, and it means trusting in the institutions that govern them. 

Every Australian must have a stake in multiculturalism, recognising that it’s not just something that applies to recent migrants or to minorities who look different. Every Australian must feel part of a nation that is by its nature made up of generations of people who came from different cultures with a common purpose and that citizenship isn’t just a status but a practice. 

Before I close, I want to reflect on an important milestone in Australia’s multicultural journey. This past month marked the 50th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. That act set in motion incredible strides in improving racial equality, including invalidating norms that discriminated against our First Nations peoples. It also set a precedent for anti-discrimination laws passed around age, sex and disability. 

In 2016, the year that I was first elected to the House of Representatives, one of the very first debates that I participated in was the debate to protect section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Now, section 18C makes it unlawful to undertake any act that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or a group because of their race, the colour of their skin or where they were born. In a country that prides itself on Australian values – you know those values of mateship, a fair go, those values of equality – this should not be controversial. It should not be controversial. If we take a moment to reflect and ensure that what we say or what we do doesn’t offend, doesn’t humiliate, doesn’t intimidate, doesn’t insult our fellow Australians because of their race or the colour of their skin or where they were born. Should not be controversial. 

At the time of the debate in 2016 the then Attorney-General said, “People have the right to be bigots,” and those in the Coalition mounted an argument against section 18C that pitted Australian against Australian, rights against rights, arguing that free speech trumped the right to feel safe, trumped the right to live your life without offence, without humiliation, without insult, without feeling like the other, without being made to feel like the lesser. 

For a newly minted Member of Parliament who had zero political experience – never watched question time in my life until I took part in it – newly minted member of Parliament, equally the first Arab Australian, first Egyptian born and first Muslim women elected to the House of Representatives, that first debate was somewhat of a baptism of fire. 

Now, we won that debate and section 18C remains a vital part of the Racial Discrimination Act. But the debate itself is testimony to the fragile nature of multiculturalism as well as a potent reminder of why multiculturalism needs to evolve, why we need to talk about and instil a new multiculturalism that tackles the substantive issues that impact the lives of Australians, issues like racism and discrimination, underemployment, barriers to participation if we are truly going to describe ourselves as the most successful multicultural country in the world. 

The good news is that we’re having this conversation. Well done, everyone. The good news is that reimagining means we are maturing. It means we have come some way but that we need to keep moving forward with substance and in practice. 

I believe that this is the right time to focus on how we shift the migrant story, how we address disadvantage and embed these changes in our institutions and how we work to ensure multiculturalism is well and truly at the core of our nation and of our future. 

The aspiration in Australia, where we have achieved a reimagined multiculturalism, is that we have multiculturalism so embedded in all that we do, in how we act as a society, that we don’t need a Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Thank you for listening. And thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to working with each and every one of you on this collective mission together. 

[ENDS]