Social cohesion should be the starting point – not an afterthought – if we want to reduce racism, resentment and extremism.

I have just one thing to say to the Honourable Virginia Bell, the leader of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion - getting the ducks in a row depends on not putting the cart before the horse!

The terms of reference of the Commission refer to four “key areas” that it will cover: the nature and prevalence of antisemitism, measures to counter antisemitism, the Bondi attack of 14 December, and ways to strengthen social cohesion and counter extremism. I absolutely believe that the order in which these matters are listed is wrong. The last should come first and other key areas should be added.

Australia has never been good at social cohesion. Celebrating Australia Day/Invasion Day and observance of Anzac Day, two of our major national holidays, do not unite the population but rather highlight divisions, between victors and the victims, residents and newcomers.

A good way to promote social cohesion in Australia would be to acknowledge that 95 per cent of us are immigrants, and to acknowledge the wisdom and law of the Indigenous people of Australia to whom the land was never ceded. If we are all immigrants, then we all have equal footing. All of us need to learn and cherish the history and culture of the land in which we live.

Australia is not a Christian country. It is not a Jewish country or a Buddhist country or a Muslim country. Whatever we believe, we are all equal under the law. We should respect each other and seek to communicate across cultures and customs.

In times past, Australia has welcomed people from every corner of the world. The role of the new Home Affairs and the old Immigration Departments was to smooth the path to citizenship and build a multicultural society. Language tuition for new arrivals included an introduction to parliamentary democracy and social services. This helped families to feel at home more quickly.

These days, we make it almost impossible for people who wish to settle here to feel secure in Australia. The cost of application for visas, the endless delays and conditions imposed, the barriers to employment and decent housing, the difficulty of family reunion, are all stressful beyond belief for people who have limited tenure and little or no support from local relatives.

People living with such stress may well harbour resentment and are bound to suffer psychologically. They are liable to see others who have done comparatively better and suspect them of receiving preference from the authorities. All this can build to a crescendo that may erupt in racism, discrimination and, yes, even antisemitism.

It will be useless for the Royal Commission to recommend counteracting antisemitism by enacting more laws, tightening border control and immigration and banning demonstrations and rallies. Far more cost-effective and productive positive measures should be considered and these can be put in place without the need to enact new laws. Let Home Affairs deal with the backlog of immigration cases. State governments can institute all-round reception arrangements for new arrivals, whether immigrants, students or business investors, including courses on language and culture. Arts and cultural departments, both federal and state, can cherish our multicultural artists and writers and make sure that they are publicised across all media. And let’s fund the education system properly and encourage the teaching of languages to assist in better understanding of our multicultural society as well as better relations with our neighbours.

As someone who, although not ethnic Chinese, has read widely in Chinese classical literature and philosophy, I must add that I prefer Confucian rather than Legalist social policies. The Legalist school teaches that faults in society must be regulated by laws and punishments, and that human nature is intrinsically evil. Confucianism, on the other hand, is based on the belief in the essential goodness of people and teaches that they will follow the right path if they are taught wisely and have good examples to follow.

I do not know which school Virginia Bell belongs to, but I suspect that as a lawyer she will favour Legalism over Confucianism. The outcome of the Royal Commission is therefore likely to be more laws and regulations and more restrictions of speech and action. Alas!