Fraser, Hon. J.M.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:34): I move:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges the positive contribution to Australian society that former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has made;

2. Acknowledges Malcolm Fraser's policy in promoting multiculturalism and acceptance of refugees that has laid the groundwork for a peaceful and diverse Australia of today; and

3. Notes, in particular, the leadership former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser demonstrated in dealing with the resettlement of about 200,000 Asian and Middle Eastern migrants and refugees, especially more than 50,000 displaced Vietnamese, during and after the Vietnam War.

It is with great sadness that I rise to speak about the life and times of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser who passed away recently. Born on 21 May 1930 in Melbourne, Malcolm Fraser was as died in the wool as a Victorian conservative could be. He was educated at Tudor House, now Geelong Grammar, before studying at Oxford University where he graduated with a degree in philosophy, politics and economics. He was the son of a grazier.

Despite all of this, Mr Fraser would prove to be one of the most progressive leaders this country has ever seen in the way he dealt with social policy. It is his leadership on Asian immigration during the Vietnam War which I would like to focus on today. Before the social upheaval of the 1970s, Malcolm Fraser was elected to the seat of Wannon in Victoria in 1956. At the time he was the youngest MP ever elected to federal parliament. In 1966 he entered cabinet as minister for the army, but it was in 1975 when he was named the Liberal Party's opposition leader after beating Billy Sneddon in a ballot that Malcolm Fraser began to make his mark on the Australian society that we enjoy today.

Much commentary focuses on that fateful day of 11 November 1975 when he was appointed Prime Minister due to the sacking of Gough Whitlam. Commentary has also focused on his many achievements during his prime ministership such as signing a treaty of friendship with Japan and enacting the Aboriginal land rights act, agreeing to the exclusion of the apartheid South Africa from international sports, enacting a law that established SBS. I have also previously spoken in this place about the importance of SBS in our community, giving the current federal government's willingness to cut its funding. He established the human rights commission, now the human rights and equal opportunity commission.

Despite all this, I want to focus on the leadership he demonstrated as an opposition leader. It is no secret that at the time the Whitlam government, the union movement and significant elements of the Labor Party were opposed to the entry of thousands of Vietnamese like myself fleeing prosecution from a brutal communist regime. There were various reasons for this. Whitlam never denied that he told the cabinet in 1975:

I'm not having these f-ing Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their religious and political prejudices against us.

Of course, 'Balts' was a reference to the Baltic states and their peoples who were fighting the repressions of Soviet communism imposed on them from Moscow. In 1975 refugees from Baltic states demonstrated against the Whitlam government's recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.

These demonstrations showed that despite their often low political profiles, refugees from communist countries could have long memories and a high degree of political solidarity, motivation, organising ability and public support. It seems that the Baltic demonstrations against Whitlam clouded his thinking on the question of admitting Vietnamese refugees.

The Labor Party, for years, had been fighting within itself the pro and anti-communist elements. While Gough Whitlam had done a great deal to restore harmony within the Labor Party, he was aware that the general public still viewed the party as sympathetic to communism. Put simply, it does not seem like the Labor Party of the 1970s was in the business of importing those whom they believed would be Liberal voters to Australia, even on such dire humanitarian grounds.

Other than the political reasons I have already discussed, there have been suggestions that Gough Whitlam's opposition to accepting asylum seekers from Vietnam was motivated by a policy not to upset the communist regime in Hanoi. It is reported that a message from Canberra to the embassy in Hanoi instructed it to advise the North Vietnamese government that Australia, '…would be very sorry to see the refugee question affect…' relations between the two nations.

Notwithstanding this, I believe Gough was simply trying to build relationships with our communist neighbours and was the first leader of a Western country to visit China in 1971. Many would agree that it was this visit that opened Australia's door to form a close relationship with China today. And China is our biggest trading partner, which contributes to our high standard of living. I can understand that Gough did not want to upset the new Vietnamese communist government by accepting people fleeing that regime. Unfortunately, it was not a proud period in the ALP's history, as many Vietnamese military personnel who served with our diggers were abandoned and left behind.

Successive Australian governments of today from both Liberal and Labor parties are doing the same thing Gough did. The Australian government often tried to avoid conflicts with our Asian neighbours, with economic benefits often taking precedence over human rights. While Malcolm Fraser was no free-market economist, he favoured the continuation of industry protection, which left Hawke and Keating with the heavy lifting to implement the reforms that opened our economy to the world. Fraser still opened us up to the world with his social reforms.

I would argue that, by effectively dismantling the White Australia policy, Malcolm Fraser actually laid the platform for the economic growth of our nation. Hawke and Keating's economic reforms would have succeeded only with a socially-mobile population, one in which Asian immigrants would play an important part.

Although the White Australia policy was officially dumped in 1966 by Harold Holt, with further reforms removing discrimination in 1973, comparatively few Asian migrants arrived, because the Whitlam Labour government cut the overall migration intake. Malcolm Fraser had always been a fierce opponent of communism, particularly in Vietnam. He did not let politics cloud his view, even as opposition leader.

As opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser said on 22 April 1975 that the government's response to South Vietnam's situation was 'petty and miserable'. He believed that Australia could and should be doing much more—pretty brave for an opposition leader. Could you imagine Tony Abbott saying that instead of, 'Stop the boats'?

The union movement also worried about the impact that the mass immigration of 'cheap labour' would have on Australian workers. When discussing the bipartisan nature of the White Australia policy, it was not just a social view: it was an economic one, too. Certainly, amongst the left and its unions, the White Australia policy was seen as an important and necessary way of supporting Australian workers. This certainly goes against the number one core value of a unionist, which I am proud to be, and that is solidarity of all workers regardless of race, colour or faith.

It must be noted that the ACTU and the Labor Party, which was led by Gough Whitlam, now opposition leader, were less accommodating. Bob Hawke, the then ACTU leader, said on 29 November 1977:

Any sovereign nation has the right to determine how it will exercise its compassion and how it will increase its population.

Regardless of this, I must stress that, when Bob Hawke became prime minister, he was a very popular MP in the Asian community as he allowed more Asians to migrate to Australia through refugee, family reunion and skills visas. Unions of today have learnt from the past and campaign to defend workers' rights not only in Australia but also in poorer nations. Unfortunately, xenophobia has been creeping back into Australian political debate in recent times, particularly regarding the foreign ownership of our assets.

In the recent New South Wales state election, I am concerned that fear of Chinese and Asian ownership of assets was used to win votes. I did not like a TV commercial from a union which portrayed images of the Chinese government and its flag as a buyer of the New South Wales electricity assets. The advert portrayed an anti-Chinese outlook on investments in this country. As far as I am concerned, the New South Wales government has not given any indication that it will sell its electricity assets to a Chinese company or other overseas interests. We are not sure who the successful buyer will be, but I am sure whoever can give the New South Wales government the best deal for its people will end up with the asset.

I do not think that it is wise for political parties to constantly attack Chinese investors when we are so dependent on that investment to grow our economy. For the past 20 or so years, our standard of living has grown due to foreign investment. The majority of the resources we have sold have been purchased by the Chinese. Without money flowing in to grow our economy through the export of our resources, we will have more towns closing down and more people out of work. Treasurer Joe Hockey said that recent revenue write-downs showed another $25 billion lost due to the slowing down of the Chinese economy, which is making our iron ore a lot cheaper than it was a few years ago. One of the main reasons that New Zealand's economy is going gangbusters is its heavy investment in China.

During the New South Wales election, there was another TV commercial that had an article from The Advertiser with a photo of Mr Li Ka Shing, majority owner of the company which has the majority share in SA Power Networks (formerly ETSA). Again, it portrayed anti-Chinese/Asian investor sentiment in this country. Mr Li is a great friend of South Australia and has regularly visited Adelaide. I know that various premiers, ministers and opposition leaders have caught up with Mr Li for lunch or dinner whenever they have visited Hong Kong. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Li when I was an adviser to then treasurer, Jack Snelling, and I found him very grounded and courteous. He speaks highly of South Australia because we are a stable state in cultural diversity, with economic and political standing. Mr Tim Soutphommasane, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, tweeted recently:

It's disappointing to see some NSW political adverts using inflammatory language about foreign investment. Let's not licence xenophobia.

I notice that in Victoria electricity assets are owned by non-Chinese investors, but that did not seem to feature at all. Also, the controversial east west link project in Victoria was awarded to a French and Spanish consortium. If that had been a consortium of Chinese investors, the question I would ask is whether it would have become a political football at the last Victorian state election. Given what happened in New South Wales, it might have been.

It is unfortunate that anti-Chinese or anti-Asian sentiment has been used and continues to be used by our political leaders to create fear, score political points and gain votes, starting with the gold rush era and then the White Australia policy, the fear of the Japanese after World War II to now where xenophobia dominates debate about our assets and natural resources.

Any asset sale is up to the Australian government of the day and it is up to politicians like ourselves to regulate the conditions of any sales to protect the interests of Australia, not the investors. It is very disingenuous for political parties to use the fear of Chinese investment to win elections and then turn around and tell Chinese investors that they love them and their money when they are in government.

Similarly, the submarine debate should be about 12 submarines being built in Australia so that it can provide people with jobs in advanced manufacturing and the long-term national security of our nation. This debate has nothing to do with Japan or its people. The debate should be about local jobs, building our capabilities, security and pride. I believe politicians and community leaders should not use xenophobic messages as a way to win votes. They should not too readily use the word 'racist' for the sake of damaging their opponents, either. Overuse of the word 'racist' by political groups for political gain runs the risk of downplaying what racism really is. It also does not help the image of this great country abroad but, more importantly, it divides and creates a lot of anxiety in the community.

I can remember in the eighties when Asian immigration was at the forefront of federal political debates between Labor and Liberal. That was when I and many Asian people copped the most abuse on the street. The South Australian community and its political leaders must be congratulated for not playing the fear card of foreign investment or, in this case, anti-Chinese investor sentiment. I believe this is due to close friendships and working relationships with all sides of politics over many decades. Credit must also go to our media for its continuing support and putting a stop to any prejudice.

Where in the world can you find a Vietnamese Governor as well as Japanese-born, Malaysian, Italian, Greek and Vietnamese (just to name a few) political leaders of a state? In South Australia we all know how important it is for foreign investors to drive our relatively small economy. We need capital and tourism, and China is important to achieving both. The Premier has already announced the South-East Asia Strategy and will lead a large business delegation on a trade mission to China soon. I am sure if the opposition returns to government it will be doing the same.

I want to conclude by returning to Malcolm Fraser and his time as prime minister. When he was in power about 200,000 Asian and Middle Eastern migrants, including 56,000 Vietnamese who applied for refugee status as well as an additional 2,000 boat people, arrived in Australia. In November 1977, just before what would be Malcolm Fraser's re-election to a second term as prime minister, HMAS Ardent intercepted a boat with about 180 Vietnamese asylum seekers which was heading for Darwin.

Despite opposition from senior National Party minister Peter Nixon, Malcolm Fraser's coalition government was accommodating to the boat people and the matter did not become an issue in the election campaign. I believe our Governor, His Excellency Le Van Hieu, was on that first boat that arrived in Darwin. The Governor told me that his boat was not allowed to land for two days until the Australian authorities worked out what to do with them. Malcolm Fraser intervened. In Fraser's foreword to one of his books he wrote:

A great test came at the end of the Vietnam War where there was a major exodus out of Indo-China. Australia responded to that challenge with an open heart, with generosity and compassion. Mr Hieu Van Le AO, Lieutenant-Governor of South Australia, was on the first boat that came into Darwin Harbour. The authorities were stopping people getting off the boats until I was told about it and were immediately instructed that they should be welcomed and given whatever immediate help they needed.

Previously in this place I have spoken about early migrants breaking down barriers for later arrivals. Leaders like Malcolm Fraser helped break down racial barriers in Australia, because he did not sing from the song sheet of old Australia. Instead, he had a vision of a modern Australia which incorporated Asians, and he led society to this position.

On behalf of many ethnic communities in Australia, especially the Vietnamese community, I thank Malcolm Fraser for his leadership, both in opposition and in government, in promoting multiculturalism. His policy of accepting many refugees from Vietnam laid the groundwork for successive governments to follow. I commend this motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.