First Australians - and all Australians
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a unique and enduring history on this continent. That history should be taught honestly, cultures respected and injustice neither denied nor minimised.
At the same time, Australia's future should not be permanently organised according to ancestry. Indigenous Australians are not one political mind, and no institution should presume to speak for every Indigenous Australian.
The 2023 Voice referendum demonstrated the difficulty of constitutional proposals involving ancestry and representation. Australians rejected the proposal nationally by 60.06% to 39.94%, with a No majority in every state. Among the arguments advanced against the proposal was concern that constitutionally distinguishing representation according to Indigenous ancestry could divide rather than unite Australians. The referendum result cannot tell us the individual reason of every voter, but it should be understood rather than dismissed.
Reconciliation should bring Australians together through dignity, opportunity and equal citizenship rather than create permanent civic separation.
Different histories deserve respect. Equal citizenship belongs to us all.
Treaty, reparations and inherited responsibility
Australia should acknowledge historical injustice honestly and honour identifiable legal rights and obligations. Governments should also address genuine disadvantage and continuing consequences where evidence shows they exist.
Australianism nevertheless questions whether Australians should permanently organise their relationship with one another through agreements based upon ancestry. Its preferred future is one Australia in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians meet as equal citizens under the same democratic institutions and the same law.
The same principle applies to reparations. Historical wrongs do not create inherited personal guilt. Australians living today should not acquire personal financial liability for events committed by earlier generations merely because of their ancestry, nor should ancestry alone create a permanent debtor-creditor relationship between fellow citizens.
Acknowledge the past. Honour genuine rights and obligations. Address genuine disadvantage. Do not make inherited ancestry the basis of permanent civic separation or inherited guilt.
Welcome to Country, the national anthem and education
Welcome to Country has cultural meaning and a modern place in Australian public life. At the same time, repeated ceremonial practices at government, civic and sporting events should not create the impression that some Australian citizens require permission to belong in their own country.
At national, government and major civic occasions, the Australian National Anthem should hold the principal national place. It is the anthem that belongs equally to every Australian. Its words also deserve more attention than they often receive. Since 2021 Australians have sung that 'we are one and free' - a concise expression of unity and liberty that sits naturally beside Australianism.
Australia's history should be taught in full: the deep history of First Peoples; colonisation, dispossession and injustice; Federation and democracy; migration; institutions; sacrifice; enterprise; science; achievement and failure.
The anthem speaks of 'golden soil and wealth for toil', joining national inheritance with work; of nature's gifts and the Southern Cross; of building the Commonwealth 'with hearts and hands'; of sharing this country with those who have 'come across the seas'; and of Australians combining with courage. The anthem does not define Australianism, but its language remarkably echoes several of its principles: one country, freedom, opportunity, contribution, migration, shared inheritance and Australians working together.
The complete official two-verse anthem is reproduced in the appendix so Australians - including new Australians - can read the words as well as sing them.
Education should create understanding, not inherited guilt. Children should not be taught that they bear personal responsibility or shame for historical events merely because of their ancestry.
Teach the whole story. Do not teach inherited guilt.
Shared place names: add history, do not erase it
Indigenous languages and place names are part of Australia's history and should be preserved, taught and displayed where appropriate. Acknowledgement is different from substitution. Using 'Melbourne / Naarm', for example, can acknowledge both histories. Displaying or announcing simply 'Naarm' to passengers travelling to Melbourne sends a different message: that recognition requires replacement of the established national and internationally recognised name.
Australians remain free to use Indigenous names. The principle is that our histories should be added together rather than one layer being treated as illegitimate.
Australian history did not begin in 1788. But neither did Australian history end in 1788. Add our histories together, not replace one with another.
Migration, integration and belonging
Migration has helped build modern Australia. Welcome should be two-way. Australia offers democracy, safety, education, opportunity, religious freedom and legal protection; those who make Australia home should participate in the common civic life.
Integration does not mean abandoning food, family, faith, language or ancestry. It means joining in: learning practical English, understanding Australian institutions and law, respecting equality between women and men, accepting freedom of religion and non-religion, tolerating criticism and resolving disagreement peacefully.
Clustering around family and culture is natural. The concern arises when concentration becomes isolation from the wider society.
Heritage should not become a wall. One society enriched by many cultures.
Citizenship should mean something
Permanent residence and citizenship are not the same thing. Citizenship should represent a deliberate commitment to Australia and a genuine understanding of its democratic system, laws, freedoms, responsibilities and civic values.
Citizenship should carry a reasonable expectation of functional English: enough to participate in ordinary Australian life, understand everyday information and instructions, communicate in the workplace and community, and engage with the basic responsibilities of citizenship. Reasonable exemptions or accommodations may be appropriate where age, disability or other compelling circumstances make that standard impracticable. The citizenship pledge should be meaningful rather than ceremonial.
Once citizenship is conferred, the citizen is an equal Australian.
No grades of citizenship. No ancestral hierarchy. No religious hierarchy.
Criticism is not hatred
Australia should strongly protect peaceful speech, including speech that is unpopular, uncomfortable or offensive. Racism, antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred are real and should be confronted, but accusations of prejudice should not substitute for answering an argument.
A mature society distinguishes people from ideas and conduct. Criticism of Islam is not automatically hatred of Muslims. Criticism of Christianity is not hatred of Christians. Criticism of an Israeli government is not automatically antisemitism. Criticism of immigration policy is not automatically racism.
A deeper Australian question deserves attention: why are religious and overseas geopolitical divisions becoming capable of damaging relationships between Australians here? That question should be examined rather than hidden behind labels.
Attack the argument. Examine the evidence. Judge the conduct. Do not stereotype the person.
Leadership brings responsibility
When hatred or violence is advocated in the name of a religion or community, its leaders have a particular opportunity - and civic responsibility - to reject it clearly.
Australians are entitled to expect clear leadership rejecting violence, terrorism, racial hatred and religious hatred. That expectation applies equally to imams, rabbis, priests, ministers and other religious leaders.
Where a religious leader personally crosses the line from protected religious or political expression into unlawful threats, incitement or hatred, authorities should act. Religious office should provide neither immunity from Australian law nor collective suspicion of people who share that religion.
One standard. One law. Leadership carries responsibility.
Name security threats accurately
Accuracy protects Australians. When terrorism is demonstrably motivated by a particular extremist ideology, authorities and public institutions should be able to identify it accurately.
As at 3 November 2026, Australia's national terrorism threat level is PROBABLE. The Australian Government defines this as a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore terrorist attack or attack planning within the next twelve months. It does not mean an attack is inevitable or necessarily imminent.
Violent Islamist extremism should be named when the evidence establishes it. White-supremacist or racist terrorism should be named when the evidence establishes it. The same standard should apply to other ideological or foreign-sponsored threats.
Naming an ideology is not collective blame. Responsibility belongs to extremists and their supporters, not to every person who shares a religion, ancestry or political tradition.
Name the threat without fear. Judge individuals by conduct. Never blame an entire community.
An informed public helps keep Australia safe
Police and intelligence agencies cannot see everything. Family members, colleagues, neighbours, teachers, teammates and members of the public may be the first people to observe genuinely concerning behaviour.
Australians should understand the threats their country faces and feel able to report reasonable concerns without believing that doing so automatically makes them racist or prejudiced. Suspicion should be based on conduct and evidence - threats, extremist recruitment, advocacy of terrorism, suspicious planning or preparations - not identity, clothing, language or ancestry.
Citizens do not determine guilt. They report reasonable concerns; authorities investigate.
You cannot reasonably ask Australians to help identify a threat while being reluctant to tell them what the threat is.
Free speech, protest and unlawful hatred
The right to protest is fundamental. It must coexist with the rights of other Australians to move safely, operate businesses, attend events and use public spaces.
Existing laws against threats, incitement, intimidation and unlawful hatred should be enforced consistently and effectively. Political or religious language should not provide camouflage for conduct that crosses the legal boundary.
Words have histories as well as intentions, and context matters. Expressions such as 'From the river to the sea' and 'Globalise the intifada' are contested, but Queensland law now identifies those expressions within prohibited-expression provisions applying in specified circumstances. Australians may debate overseas conflicts vigorously, but political or religious slogans do not create immunity from laws dealing with threats, incitement, intimidation or prohibited hatred.
Support for Palestinian civilians and statehood is legitimate. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Support for Israel is legitimate. None of those positions creates immunity for threats, incitement, intimidation or unlawful hatred.
Protest does not create immunity from Australian law.
Religious freedom and civic responsibility
Australians should be free to practise a religion, change religion or practise none. Australian law remains the ultimate civil authority.
Forced marriage, violence, intimidation and coercion do not become acceptable because they are claimed as religious or cultural practices. Attacks on Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Christians as Christians or any other Australians because of faith are attacks on fellow Australians.
Not in our country. Not against our fellow Australians.
Religious and other belief systems can provide meaning, comfort, moral guidance and a sense of belonging, particularly during life’s uncertainties. Australianism respects the freedom to hold such beliefs, to change them or to hold none, provided that the equal rights and freedoms of others are respected.
A free press - and journalism Australians can trust
A healthy democracy requires a free and independent media. It also requires journalism Australians can trust.
Absolute freedom from personal perspective may be impossible. Fairness is not. News reporting should distinguish fact from opinion, present material facts even when they complicate a preferred narrative, fairly represent serious competing arguments and correct significant errors promptly.
Commentary, analysis and advocacy have legitimate places in Australian public life. An opinion program does not become untrustworthy merely because it has a point of view. What matters is that it is recognisable as opinion and that factual claims used to support the opinion are researched honestly, capable of being tested and corrected when wrong. Good commentary should distinguish established facts from inference, judgement and opinion, while remaining free to argue a conclusion strongly.
Publicly funded broadcasters carry an additional responsibility. Because Australians of every political persuasion contribute to their funding, their news and current-affairs services should demonstrate independence, impartiality and meaningful exposure to significant competing viewpoints.
The same intellectual standard should apply across the media. Bias does not become acceptable merely because we agree with it. News reporting should strive for fairness and factual completeness. Clearly identified opinion may take a side, but the facts on which it relies should still be honestly researched and represented. Commercial broadcasters, newspapers and commentators should be judged by that same demand for factual honesty.
Australianism does not need journalism to tell Australians what to think. It needs journalism that gives Australians the information they need to think for themselves.
Perception is not necessarily reality. What attracts our attention shapes what we notice. What we notice can shape what we believe. But what we believe should still be tested against the facts. Good journalism should help Australians understand reality, not simply reinforce their existing perceptions.
Freedom, personal responsibility and the limits of government
Australianism is not anti-government. Medicare, national security, infrastructure, the justice system and the social safety net demonstrate why capable government matters.
But capable government is not the same as unlimited government. Individuals, families and communities should retain responsibility for what they can reasonably do themselves. Over-regulation can weaken initiative, accountability and personal responsibility.
Government has legitimate responsibilities online concerning crime, threats, exploitation, child safety and other unlawful conduct. Social media should not, however, become a mechanism through which government suppresses lawful political disagreement or inconvenient opinion.
The boundary should be Australian law, applied transparently and subject to democratic and judicial accountability - not whether the government of the day approves of a view.
Government should do what Australians genuinely need government to do - and leave Australians free and responsible where government is not required.
Freedom gives us choices. Responsibility asks us to consider their consequences — for ourselves, for others and for the country we share. Our beginnings do not have to determine our future; the choices available to us, and how we exercise them, can help shape it.
Responsible parenting and raising good Australians
Citizenship begins before voting age. Parents have the primary responsibility for raising children. Schools educate and reinforce standards; they cannot replace parents.
Courtesy, honesty, responsibility, resilience, respect for teachers and older Australians, consideration for neighbours and responsible use of social media are not relics of another generation. They are everyday expressions of citizenship.
Parents cannot outsource upbringing to schools, technology or government. Schools cannot compensate for every failure at home. Communities also have a role in reinforcing decent standards of behaviour.
Parents raise children. Schools educate them. Communities reinforce standards. None can entirely outsource its responsibility to the others.
Respect begins at home
Australianism asks Australians to treat one another with dignity, equality and respect. Those principles do not stop at the front door.
Violence, coercion and intimidation by one partner against another are fundamentally inconsistent with the fair go. No cultural tradition, religious belief, family expectation or claim of privacy excuses violence or coercive control.
Women and men are equal Australians. Children deserve to grow up without violence in their homes.
If we expect Australians to respect strangers, neighbours and fellow citizens, we must expect no less within families and relationships.
Sex, gender, fairness and protected spaces
Every Australian should be treated with dignity and respect, including transgender Australians. Respect for an individual, however, does not require society to deny biological sex. Where biological sex is materially relevant, a biological male is male and a biological female is female. That distinction matters in areas including fairness, safety, privacy, medicine, statistics, prisons and sport.
Female sporting categories exist because male puberty ordinarily produces physical advantages relevant to many athletic competitions, including differences in strength, power, speed, size and skeletal characteristics. Respecting a person's gender identity does not require pretending those sporting consequences do not exist.
A person who has undergone male puberty should not obtain an entitlement to compete in a female sporting category solely because of gender identity. Rules should protect the purpose of the female category. Where additional sporting opportunities are needed, the responsibility should not automatically fall upon the female category to accommodate them. Open, mixed or, where viable, transgender-specific categories could instead be developed. Sporting bodies, participants and organisations advocating for transgender inclusion could help establish and support those alternatives rather than requiring women to bear the consequences of the accommodation. This is also an application of personal responsibility: inclusion should not automatically require another group to surrender an existing protection, category or opportunity.
Women and girls should have reasonable access to female-only toilets, changing rooms, showers and other intimate spaces where privacy, dignity or safety justify sex-based provision, while appropriate arrangements should also protect the dignity and safety of transgender Australians. Similar care is required in prisons, where biological sex, offending history, vulnerability, privacy and individual risk can all be relevant.
Ordinary biological language should not be treated as offensive merely because it describes sex-specific functions. Breastfeeding, for example, is an accurate and long-established term and should remain entirely legitimate. Individuals may choose different language for themselves, but public language should not require familiar biological terms to be displaced or avoided.
Respect the individual. Recognise biological sex. Preserve female categories and legitimate sex-based protections. Where additional accommodation is sought, first ask whether it can be provided without requiring women to surrender theirs.
Crime, community safety and the fair go
The fair go applies to victims too. Australians who work, save and build a life should be entitled to reasonable protection of themselves, their families, their homes and the things they have worked to acquire.
A fair society should give young offenders a genuine opportunity to turn their lives around. But a fair go is not an endless licence to deny somebody else theirs. Where serious or violent offending is repeated, protection of the community must take priority.
Sentencing, bail, rehabilitation and youth justice involve difficult questions of evidence, age, culpability, deterrence and judicial discretion. Specific mechanisms - including proposals for mandatory minimum sentences for repeat aggravated home invasion - should therefore be debated as policy choices rather than treated as compulsory elements of Australianism.
Respect other Australians. Respect what they have worked for. Accept responsibility when you seriously violate the rights of others.
Crime causes real harm to real people. Violence, intimidation, theft, and disregard for the law destroy opportunities, weaken communities, and leave lasting scars, not only on victims, but also on their loved ones, and those left to live with the consequences. No one is destined for crime because of background or circumstances. What matters the most is the choices we make, the values that guide them, and our willingness to accept responsibility for the consequences. Real courage can mean refusing to follow others when doing so risks harming someone else or compromising your own future.
Protecting the Australian National Flag
The flag represents the country and its people, not whichever government happens to hold office. Deliberate public burning or serious desecration intended as an attack upon the national symbol should be treated as a serious offence, with the law carefully confined to deliberate conduct and excluding accident or proper disposal.
I support a mandatory minimum penalty for deliberate serious desecration, with greater penalties for repeat conduct, destruction of another person's flag, intimidation, violence or associated disorder. The strongest counterarguments concern freedom of political expression and proportionality, and any reform would require precise drafting and constitutional scrutiny.
Governments come and go. The national flag represents the country we share.
Terrorist murder, punishment and prison radicalisation
My position is that deliberate terrorist murder is qualitatively different from ordinary homicide because the victim is not the only intended target: the wider society is deliberately terrorised or coerced for a political, religious or ideological purpose.
On that basis, I support the availability of capital punishment after conviction and exhaustion of stringent safeguards. This is my proposed application of Australianism, not a description of Australian law and not a necessary condition of accepting Australianism. The strongest objections - wrongful conviction, irreversibility, moral opposition, Australia's existing legal and international commitments, and disputed deterrent effect - must be acknowledged rather than avoided. If Australia continues to reject capital punishment, my minimum alternative for deliberate terrorist murder would be permanent imprisonment without release.
Prison radicalisation is a separate security question. Imprisoned extremists must not be permitted to recruit or radicalise other prisoners. Corrections authorities require intelligence capability, appropriate separation where necessary, intervention and disengagement programs, and continuing risk assessment.
Punishment and prison security are related questions, but they should not be confused.