Members of the political class, beaming to some captured audience, will sometimes embellish their speeches with the declaration that Australia is ‘the most successful multicultural country in the world’.

One obvious problem in assessing this is that ‘multicultural’ is a ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ word. As he told Lewis Carroll’s Alice in rather a scornful tone, ‘When I use a word it means precisely what I want it to mean, nothing more or less.’

The introduction of the possibly deliberately imprecise word ‘multicultural’ into officially approved speech constituted a blank cheque allowing yet another elite ideology to seep into governance without the people’s approval, and without serious consideration of the likely danger it could pose to the integrity of the nation.

The point surely is that, well before Federation, a vibrant, powerful and attractive Australian culture had already emerged.

Some significant aspects accompanied the fashionably disparaged, yet remarkably beneficial, British settlement of 1788.

At least five aspects came with Governor Phillip and are still with us: the most advantageous language in the world, our Judeo-Christian beliefs and values, the absence of the widespread institution of slavery, the rule of law and the advanced system of governance under which the governors operated, and which would be introduced with the surprisingly early grant of self-government.

The immediate application of the rule of law in what was a penal colony is demonstrated by the successful legal action concerning the misappropriation of property brought almost immediately by a convict couple, Henry and Susannah Kable, against a mighty ship’s captain.

For one century before the settlement, the system of British governance was based on the Glorious Revolution. This finally brought to an end the festering dispute between monarch and parliament with the introduction of constitutional monarchy Mark I, alongside the constitutional separation of powers. Montesquieu recognised this as a model for other nations on how to achieve political liberty. Republicanised, this would be the constitutional model chosen by the American Founding Fathers.

With governments soon requiring the confidence of the Commons, in the resulting Mark II version of the constitutional monarchy,the Crown became a key constitutional check and balance as well as the national symbol of unity.

Australia was initially administered by governors under both versions. Upon self-government, the governors then played the role of local constitutional monarchs. This was a surprisingly sophisticated system, and still is. If in doubt, just glance over the current UN membership.

Because of the extraordinary egalitarianism that prevailed, quality education, and considerable economic success, democracy came earlier than for most of the world.

South Australia, and then Australia, were the first not only to grant the vote to women but also to allow them to stand for parliament.

The new nation did adopt, against imperial wishes, a racially restrictive immigration policy screened behind a dictation test. Those of other races who were allowed in or were already here, were subject to few restrictions. Most of these were soon withdrawn, with racially restrictive immigration ending within six decades.

Meanwhile, with the left’s long march through the institutions, beginning with education, it is not surprising that the young have been  taught that the settlement was an ‘invasion’ and that the Aboriginal people fought against it in ‘frontier wars’. But as leading historian, Keith Windschuttle demonstrates, with impeccable research based on original sources, the thesis of the respected scholar, W.E.H. Stanner, correctly presents the facts.

Rather than so-called ‘frontier wars’, he concluded the usual model was of Aborigines ‘coming in’, voluntarily joining colonial society. This was based on a pragmatic recognition of its advantages and attractions.

Moreover, they seem to have preferred assimilation. Indeed, the problem in the remote communities today comes directly from the replacement by H.C. ‘Nugget’ Coombs of assimilation with an unsuccessful segregationist agenda.

As Windschuttle says, even as far back as the original settlement at Sydney Cove, there was nothing with even the slightest resemblance to ‘frontier wars’, ‘guerrilla warfare’, or ‘resistance’ as is currently taught as ‘historical truth’ to generations of children.

Assimilation was not only the preference of Aborigines, it was also the logical preference of immigrants first from mainland Europe and then from Asia and the world.

While they introduced their fascinating cuisines and the foreign-born spoke their languages at home, they became Australians.

One of the attractions of Australia was that by Federation, Australia enjoyed one of the world’s most advanced civilisations.

It was hardly perfect, but it was better than most in matters as different as education and sports, women’s rights, democratic governance and the rule of law.

At the time of the introduction of the alien doctrine of multiculturalism, no Australians showed any wish that Australian civilisation – our culture – be diluted by others.

They did not want ghettos.

They certainly did not want old hatreds brought to Australia. and they certainly did not want that evil bacillus of antisemitism.

As noted here, antisemitism was imported by politicians exercising the immigration power with either gross negligence or even for deliberate vote harvesting, as in the case of ‘refugees’ from Gaza, whom no Arab country, even the fabulously wealthy Gulf oil states, will admit.

Meanwhile, in recent years successive governments have finally recognised the problems which can be encouraged by pushing multiculturalism. Despite the requirement since 2007 that potential immigrants sign an Australian Values Statement and potential citizens pass a citizenship test, the emergence of antisemitism is an indictment, especially on the Labor and Greens parties.

As to multiculturalism, the fact remains that Australian culture is one of the most successful  and advanced in the world. Why should it be diluted? It is the reason why immigrants want to come here.

This column recently suggested that where deportation is blocked constitutionally, a government should immediately go to the people. This would best be through an elected constitutional convention. With the controversies referred to here, and since there has not been a people’s review since the constitution was adopted well over a century ago, isn’t one now long overdue?