Asked five times, there was one word Angus Taylor couldn’t say

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor was asked more than five times about whether he backed a multicultural vision of Australia on Tuesday.

It was not until the sixth attempt that he gave a semblance of a direct answer – saying Australians could come from any country or religion so long as they shared values.

But he didn’t use the M-word.

The word took on fresh taboo status after Pauline Hanson’s speech at the National Press Club last week, in which the ascendant One Nation leader said Australia “cannot be a multicultural society”.

“We are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural,” was Hanson’s cry.

Hanson laid out a dichotomy that is now shaping the political conversation about cultural diversity in Australia. In doing so, she’s planted another minefield for Taylor to dance around.

The One Nation leader made similar remarks again on Tuesday, citing Japan as an example of a monoculture and questioning why Australia couldn’t be the same.

When Anthony Albanese was asked about her comments later in the morning, he got to the point. “Modern Australia is not a monoculture and it never has been,” the prime minister said.

Albanese ran through a quick history that started with the First Fleet and ended with the Socceroos, a group noted for their diverse make-up which includes players from refugee and migrant backgrounds.

“We won’t move forward if we get stuck in these cultural debates that are all aimed at dividing people,” he said.

When Taylor was asked two hours later, it was not so straightforward.

Instead, he made reference to the Coalition’s immigration policy on Australian values. As is often the case in press conferences, this only invited more questions.

Asked by a third reporter whether he thought Australia should be a monoculture, Taylor replied: “You explain to me what you mean by this, you see there’s all these vague words running around.

“But I tell you what, the one thing I want all of us to share is those core Australian values.”

Then the fourth: “With respect, sir, you’ve now dodged four questions in a row about whether multiculturalism is a policy aim that you would stand by. Is it or is it not?”

Taylor replied: “I’ve answered that question four times.”

Finally, the fifth reporter: “I’m also interested in whether you do support multiculturalism? It seems like a pretty straightforward question.”

Taylor: “Do you want to define it for me?”

Reporter: “No, I don’t, I just wonder if it’s a problem for you that you can’t.”

At last Taylor gave it a crack.

“We can have people from all over the world, right? That is not a problem,” he said.

“Now, you got me going here. Let me have a go. We can have people from all over the world, of all races and religions in this country, but they must share those core values. I don’t know how much simpler it can be than that.

“One of the reasons why I know this is so clear and so widely felt and shared across Australia is when you go to a citizenship ceremony, that’s what we talk about.”

Perhaps it was a desire to stay on message, or habit of sticking to talking points, that explains why Taylor was most comfortable repeating the same lines he often trots about Australian values – instead of responding with a yes or no.

Or perhaps he was sandwiched in a cultural debate with no favourable way out. Labor was on one side, defending Australia’s multicultural tradition. Hanson was on the other, demanding a monoculture.

Where to go for Taylor? Mounting a defence of multiculturalism is not part of his strategy for wooing back cultural conservatives who are fleeing the Coalition for One Nation. But simply aping Hanson and her slogans is not an option either.

The opposition leader was right to say these words can be used in a way that is vague and loosely defined. They take on different meanings, and evoke different emotions, in different people.

Hanson, who threw this grenade into political debate, emphasises she wants people to speak English. But beyond that, she doesn’t explain precisely what she means when she envisions Australia as a monoculture.

Both Hanson and Taylor talk about uniting Australia under the same civic values and laws – a goal few would argue against. But values and laws are not the same as culture. If it’s not an issue of race for Hanson, then where does she want to draw the line – on language, identity, tradition, food, dress, music or religious practice?

And even if a “monoculture” was simply pointing to a set of values, to what extent does this appreciate that Australia’s diverse social fabric informed those values in the first place?

Even new One Nation MP David Farley conceded the debate involved a “play on words” when interviewed on the ABC’s Afternoon Briefing program late on Tuesday afternoon.

Without further explanation, these words – monoculture and multiculturalism – are instead becoming tribal signifiers in today’s fractured political environment.

One speaks to a worldview where assimilation with a dominant culture – presumably, but not explicitly, that of white Australia – is prioritised over any difference. The other celebrates diversity on top of a shared set of fundamental values.

Hanson’s simple slogan communicates where she stands. Labor also knows its position – that why senior ministers leapt to mock the opposition leader over his response in question time. Taylor tiptoed.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.