Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to be associated with this condolence motion. Michael MacKellar was a friend, a friend that I served with in this parliament till he left us in 1994. I served with him for some 20 years in public life. He was previously the member for Warringah. He served as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, between 1975 and 1979, and latterly served as Minister for Health, between 1979 and 1982. He was later a member of the then opposition's frontbench. That does not tell you much about this man that I regard as particularly special.

If you go to some comments made by former member for Gwydir and Leader of the National Party, John Anderson, you will appreciate that Michael was a very unusual member for a metropolitan electorate. He was a young man who left correspondence school, was able to get to Shore school in Sydney for a time, entered Sydney university and studied agriculture, graduating as a Bachelor of Agricultural Science, and worked in that field before he went to the United Kingdom, where he gained a Master of Arts in Oxford. So here is a man interested in issues relating to agriculture and sustainability being elected to one of our very significant metropolitan seats. He first stood for Liberal Party preselection in 1966 and was defeated.

The comments that John Anderson made that I was particularly interested in and which I wish to be noted were his comments about Michael MacKellar's 'secret weapon' that was ultimately to lead to his selection as the member for Warringah. Michael, in March 1969, married Robbie. The leader went on to say that, as so many of us have discovered in this place, our wives—or husbands, as the case may be—are so often our greatest assets, unsung heroes though they may be. Michael, Robbie was soon to prove yours. After they were married, the news broke that the member for Warringah was to retire. Michael and Robbie were on honeymoon at the time, but he came back for preselection and won. My own wife used to say of Robbie MacKellar what a remarkable lady she was. With a son with disabilities, she had very significant responsibilities not only as a member's wife but also as a mother. That was part of the challenge that the MacKellars had to cope with when Michael was a member in this place.

Michael was interested, as I have been, in the way in which this country develops. He had some very interesting observations to make about population issues, and he was speaking about these matters in the 1970s. He said then: 'Because Australia is so big, some people put forward the view that we can accept hundreds of millions of people.' But, if you actually read his speeches, you will see that he had a compassion for helping refugees, a focus on bringing to Australia skilled migrants that we need, accommodating proper family reunion, but an integrity in migration. In that sense, for me as a later minister for immigration, he was a role model.

I can say truthfully that this parliament is a very different place to the parliament that I entered in 1973 and he entered in 1969. He was the first of those people who entered the parliament a little earlier than me—people like David Connolly, Alan Cadman, John Howard—when the parliament was still occupied by what we affectionately referred to as 'the 49ers'. They were the people who entered the parliament with Menzies in 1949 and were there for those 23 years of the Liberal government and were still making a contribution when I entered the parliament in 1973.

When he retired in 1994, Michael made some interesting comments about the way in which this parliament conducts itself. It is a place where spontaneity has been largely lost. I am forever amazed that the people who come into this place and into the other place have to read everything they say. There was once a time when we had rules that prevented members from reading speeches. People would take points of order—I would love to take a point of order—that the member is reading a speech. I must say to be able to engage as we did in the old chamber with others in debate where you could flesh out issues in a way that was positive and beneficial has largely been lost. I notice that Michael McKellar said, 20 years down the track, said:

We are debating changes to the standing orders. I do not think that at this stage of the debate we have addressed the problem of an attitude towards this place.When I came into the parliament—and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was in the parliament—question time was a vital, active, involved time for the chamber. People were jumping up on both sides of the House. Since that time the chamber has become sterile, there has not been the participation that used to be evident, and its public impact has diminished to an extraordinary degree. That has been brought about by successive leaders of governments and leaders of oppositions.

I must say that I could not agree more, when I think of the way in which the parliament conducts itself these days. There was a time when I first came here that The Sydney Morning Herald would write up question time, with the questions asked and the replies given. It was a matter of public interest. When do you last recall questions being written up in that way and when our parliament was seen to be contributing substantially?

This brings me to the point I wanted to make in this debate today. Michael McKellar was an extraordinarily positive Minister for Immigration and, probably after me, the second-longest serving Minister for Immigration in the last 30 years. Most have never contributed more than two or three years; Michael was there for four; I was there for seven and a half—not that that is of great moment. But the point I wanted to make is that I think immigration is one of the most important portfolios that you can have. It is about nation building. It is about putting in place the building blocks for Australia and its future, and the non-discriminatory principles that were instituted by Michael MacKellar as part of the Fraser government have been absolutely crucial to its success.

That success is demonstrated today, when I think we can say that we have the largest proportion of overseas-born people in our population of any country in the world, except for Israel and Luxembourg—a fact not well-known, particularly about Luxembourg. If cultural diversity were a problem, we would have the biggest problems in the world, and yet it works extraordinarily well. I think it has a lot to do with the policies that were put in place and administered by Michael MacKellar, and I think at a time when we acknowledge his passing we should thank God that we were able to have somebody like him in that role.

In August 1988 we had some difficult debates in my party about immigration. It was not the first time; it was the second. Some people thought that there may be circumstances in which you might wish to discriminate against people on the basis of their race or their country of origin. I am just looking at an extract from The Canberra Times as I say this. It records that there were six Liberals unhappy with the party's immigration policy. The article leads with two former ministers for immigration, Michael MacKellar and Ian Macphee; a spokesman for our party at that time, Philip Ruddock; Senator Peter Baume; the late Ian Wilson, who was the member for Sturt; and Steele Hall. It was Macphee, Baume, Ruddock and Hall who crossed the floor on a very difficult issue of principle. MacKellar and Wilson each abstained. He continued to play a leadership role in relation to these matters.

I think his contribution has been greatly undersold, if I can put it that way. I think he has been a very significant contributor to this nation. I am sorry that I had not seen him of late—he moved interstate. I am equally sorry that Robbie had passed away. I did want to be associated with this motion, and I simply observe that Australia is the lesser for his passing.

See this speech in context