Andrew L. Urban
The greatest sleight of hand confusing Australians is characterised by the phrase ‘social cohesion’. The Prime Minister speaks of it in virtually every public utterance as a desired but missing glue in our society. This deliberately misidentifies the problem faced by Australian society – and thus the path to solving it. It is not social cohesion that fractures Australian society. It is the impossibility of cultural cohesion.
Albanese refers to social cohesion, particularly in the context of national unity following the December 2025 Bondi terrorist attack, rising antisemitism, and related national security measures. He’s trying to hoodwink us. What can he mean by “social cohesion“: where in his view is the fault line? Isn’t it the vile Jew-hating, pro-Palestine mobs on the Opera House steps and on the Harbour Bridge etc on one side, and all the rest of us on the other?
In the press conference announcing the Royal Commission (8 January 2026), Albanese directly addressed social cohesion while announcing the establishment of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion: “I’ve said repeatedly that our Government’s priority is to promote unity and social cohesion. And this is what Australia needs – to heal, to come together…”
He further emphasised that the Royal Commission would examine ways of “strengthening social cohesion in Australia” and that Commissioner Virginia Bell would conduct the inquiry in a way that takes into account “the need to build and protect social cohesion.”
In multiple press conferences around the recall of Parliament to pass new hate crime and extremism laws, Albanese repeatedly linked social cohesion to national response efforts: responding to a journalist asking about his judgement on social cohesion in Australia:
“That social cohesion is under pressure globally.
“With the very spirit in which we’re going forward, including the provisions of the Royal Commission about social cohesion, we regard this as a moment where we need to emphasise that the Australian way is to show respect for each other…”
Shortly after the Bondi attack, during a press conference with Minister Tony Burke, he said “My job as Prime Minister is to look at how we build unity, how we build social cohesion, how we do what the nation needs at what is a very difficult time.”
He also expressed concern about social cohesion in the context of avoiding public platforms for divisive voices.
In early 2026 statements and interviews (including radio and television appearances), Albanese frequently tied social cohesion to combating antisemitism, hate speech, and extremism. Official sources note that he used the term repeatedly in connection with the Royal Commission, new legislation (e.g., the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act), and community healing efforts. Commentators and media reports in January–February 2026 observed that he had used “social cohesion” dozens of times since the Bondi attack.
These references predominantly occurred in the wake of the 14 December 2025 Bondi terrorist attack and were part of a wider government framing around national unity, anti-hate measures, and protecting all communities. The term appeared far less frequently in his public statements earlier in 2025.
The term social cohesion was a deliberate disguise. Albanese was keen to burn into the minds of Australians that it was social cohesion that needs to be restored. In reality, it is not social but cultural cohesion that has been broken, due to Islamic extremism crashing into Judeo-Christian cohesion. That is why he has studiously avoided referring to Islam and Islamic extremism, as part of Labor’s politically sneaky technique to avoid holding Islam to account.
I’m not alone. Christopher Joye (AFR Contributing Editor) in December 2025, in a widely shared opinion piece following the Bondi attack, lamented the erosion of Australia’s “cohesive national identity” and “national character,” contrasting it with what he called a “heterogeneous agglomeration of vested and frequently colliding interests.” He argued that the nation has “traded away our soul” through policies prioritizing equality of outcomes over excellence, linking this to envy-driven antisemitism and broader cultural fragmentation. Joye implied “social cohesion” initiatives fail because they ignore the need for a restored cultural core, including pride in history, flag, and entrepreneurial spirit.
Brian Tamaki (founder of Destiny Church and The Freedoms & Rights Coalition), explicitly declared “multiculturalism has failed” as the root cause of the Bondi attack, stating it cannot build “unity” amid “competing religions, values, and loyalties.” He advocated for “one nation, one people, one law… under one God” (emphasizing Christian foundations), positioning this cultural/religious cohesion as essential, while dismissing multicultural “social cohesion” as a “failed experiment” leading to division and violence. He cited similar failures in the UK, France, Sweden, urging a rejection of policies like high immigration without assimilation.
Bec Freedom (National Organiser, March for Australia) directly blamed the Bondi shooting on “the multicultural society that has been pushed onto Australians,” arguing it imports “foreign agendas” and wars, eroding safety and national identity. She called for reclaiming Australia’s “land, our heritage and our culture,” implying “social cohesion” is a facade for accepting diversity at the expense of true cultural unity.
Overall, this debate substantiates a polarized view: “social cohesion” as band-aid vs. “cultural cohesion” as foundational repair.
When I arrived in Australia in 1966 towards the end of the assisted migration program, social cohesion was plainly evident, with a multi-mix of mostly European and Asian migrants working, living, debating, worshipping (and eating) freely around the country. For example, Europeans and Chinese lived side by side with Italians, Greeks and Hungarians … and also ate at Lebanese, French and Thai restaurants. When thousands of Vietnamese refugees arrived, they too, integrated and social cohesion remained. (Vietnamese restaurants also arrived.) They may have been ‘different’ cultures in some cases, but they do not oppose Judeo-Christian culture.
It wasn’t until Muslim migration expanded and Islam became an aggressive cultural weed in Australia’s garden of Judeo-Christian tolerance that cohesion broke down. It isn’t – or shouldn’t be – surprising. These are two fundamentally incompatible cultures, based on incompatible religious beliefs. One elevates love and forgiveness (‘do unto others …’), the other submission and dominance (‘do as you’re told or die’).