Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the condolence motion for the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia.

I want to begin with something which Paul Kelly wrote about Malcolm Fraser in 1984 in his book The Hawke Ascendancy, which does chronicle those years: 'In 1977, Malcolm Fraser reached the zenith of his power in a career which would establish him as Australia's second-longest-serving Prime Minister to Sir Robert Menzies. He would soon lay claim to being the best Prime Minister produced by the Liberal Party, even including its founding father. His record as a power politician is rivalled in Australian history only by Billy Hughes and Menzies. Fraser's assets were an iron resolution, immense physical stamina, dominance of his party, extensive political management skills and his economic policy, despite the celebrated deviations from it.

The 1977 election had reaffirmed Fraser's control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate originally won in 1975. This meant he bestrode the nation, dominant in parliament, the cabinet and the Liberal Party in a manner so comprehensive that it is not likely to recur for many years.'

I read this book over 20 years ago and that portrait has always stuck with me—the fact that he was such a dominant figure in his time. I think in the years that have passed there have been so many different shades of Malcolm Fraser that people have seen that they have forgotten how dominant he was as Prime Minister in the parliament and in the Liberal Party.

I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to speak with Dr Jim Forbes last month. Of all the parliamentarians that served with Malcolm Fraser, Jim Forbes and his wife, Margie, probably knew Malcolm the longest. They had known each other at Oxford, before Malcolm Fraser became a Prime Minister. They had known him in his early 20s.

Jim told me a story which is in the biography by Philip Ayers. Jim is one of the last surviving ministers from the Menzies government. But when Menzies stepped down and Harold Holt became Prime Minister, Harold Holt called in all of the ministers and asked them what they would want to do. Jim had been the Minister for the Army. He enjoyed being Minister for the Army but he felt as a professional politician that it was time to seek new challenges. So Harold Holt asked him, 'Who do you think should do it?' Jim said, 'What about Malcolm Fraser? He's shown an interest in this and he is chair of the backbench committee.' And Harold Holt said, 'Well, he's not an ex-serviceman.' Jim's response was, 'Look, it's now 20 years after the end of the Second World War. We do have to start bringing on people who didn't serve during the Second World War.' As a result of that conversation, Malcolm Fraser became the Minister for the Army and later Minister for Defence.

He became Prime Minister when I was in year 3—I was eight—and when he lost the election I was 15, so my immediate interests and priorities were not necessarily politics. I was very much focused on other things. I can still remember the evening when he came on to introduce Countdown. Like most schoolkids at that time, we were waiting for it and suddenly Malcolm Fraser came on and said, 'And now for something completely different: welcome to Countdown.' I remember the subject in the schoolyard and then in the classroom the next day was how disappointed we had all been that the Prime Minister was there. But then we were relieved that it was just that he was only introducing Countdown!

I was just starting to become interested in politics towards the end of the time he was in government. I can remember the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, where we won all of those gold medals in swimming. Malcolm Fraser seemed to have the knack of turning up when Australia was going to sweep the freestyle or whatever. I think it is probably something that John Howard learnt from at the Sydney Olympics, because I remember him being ever present while Australia was doing well.

I can remember seeing it on TV, that night when he had to concede defeat in the 1983 election—the tear rolling down his cheek when he was at the Southern Cross Hotel in Melbourne. I have vague memories of elections at that time. We lived in what was then the seat of Kingston—a large part of that is now the western part of my electorate. In 1980 it was won by 120 votes; it was the second-most-marginal seat in Australia at that time and was held by Grant Chapman. We were very conscious that we lived in a marginal area. We were in an area where in the subsequent election Gordon Bilney ran against Grant Chapman and won that seat in 1983.

In 1979 I had the opportunity to come to Canberra on a school trip, as so many do. We were shown around by Ian Wilson, who was then the member for Sturt. He spent some time giving us copies of Hansard and telling us how the building worked—we were then in Old Parliament House. I think we passed him—Mr Fraser. We did not meet with him then.

There are some other things that are memories of mine. Since Mr Fraser died I have also spoken with John Bolt, who has been a mentor of mine and who rowed for Australia in the Olympics. He had a different view of Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister, because John was part of the Australian Olympic team preparing to go to Moscow and very nearly did not go. It was a very narrow vote which allowed Australian sports to make the decision to go to Moscow. That kind of sporting boycott is something that I hope we do not see again, where sports men and women, who suspend their careers and spend years of their lives training, do not end up going to the Olympics due to a political decision.

I have spoken to many people who were part of the Fraser government. During the Fraser government we saw the rise of an organised modest members' society. The issues they were considering were things like the duopoly in domestic airlines. But there was the start of a movement to see microeconomic reform and taxation reform, and I think that group did not feel that Malcolm Fraser was really their champion. I got to know John Hyde very well during my time as a member of parliament, and I think he and Malcolm Fraser had a very testy relationship during that time. John Hyde had a very clear idea of what sorts of economic reforms he would like see.

Malcolm was very dominant in the cabinet. One of the early decisions the Fraser cabinet made, in March 1976, was to proceed with the ban of cigarette and tobacco advertising on TV and on radio. One of the stories I have read about that decision—I could not immediately source it—was that they had a debate and the health minister proposed that they continue with the ban while the Minister for Posts and Communications put up an argument that they should seek further information and not continue with the ban. I read once that the vote was eight to six in favour of not continuing with the ban and then Malcolm Fraser said, 'Well, that's very clear; we will continue.' So, on a vote, the cabinet decision was clear but, as chair of cabinet, ultimately, Prime Ministers have to make their own judgement. I think his judgement on that occasion was right. It has been a very important reform and one of the reasons we have such low smoking rates now.

I admired his work with the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group and the role he played in criticising the apartheid regime in South Africa. When I worked in South Africa in 1989 and 1990, I found that many South Africans were aware of Australia's position on apartheid and many of them were aware of Malcolm Fraser's work on that. One of his legacies, which I am sure he would not be so proud of, was the role he had with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe should have been a great country, and it is tragic to see what Mugabe has done in that country.

One of Malcom Fraser's courageous decisions was to allow more than 200,000 Vietnamese to settle in Australia. He saw, correctly, that Australia had a moral obligation to the Vietnamese with whom we had fought side-by-side in the Vietnam War. Malcolm Fraser had a Senate majority from 1975 to 1 July 1981. Since the reform of the Senate electoral system to a proportional representation system in 1949 it has been a very rare event for a government to have a Senate majority. After it ended in 1981, the next time a government had a Senate majority was during the Howard government from 2005. So it is a rare thing.

Another thing I would like to mention is the relationship between Malcolm Fraser and John Howard. In my lifetime, they have been the two dominant figures in the Liberal Party. I remember well during the 1996 election that Malcolm Fraser wrote an opinion piece which was a very strong endorsement of John Howard. It explained why Malcolm had promoted John Howard over more senior colleagues to be Treasurer in 1977. I keep going back to that and thinking how the Liberal Party and Malcolm Fraser underwent an estrangement. It is not all that long ago that, while Malcolm Fraser did not necessarily agree with everything the Liberal Party did, he was prepared to put his name to endorsing John Howard in 1996.

I had the opportunity to hear Mr Fraser speak at a Young Liberal Movement dinner in Adelaide in July 1993. It was just after the 1993 election. He was a fascinating speaker with clarity of thought. He was not a fan of Fightback!—which will not surprise anyone—but even 10 years after being Prime Minister he closely followed issues like Mabo, and his dissection of our campaign was very good.

In closing, one of the really beautiful moments at his funeral was when his granddaughter spoke about how he had adopted the iPad and how he had adopted social media and Twitter. It is almost incongruous that someone we remember so well from the seventies and eighties was so up to date with modern technology, but perhaps we should not be surprised.

Paul Kelly described how Malcolm Fraser operated as Prime Minister:

He devoured paper at work, at The Lodge, at Nareen, in cars and planes, at home and abroad … He processed information, recycled it, recalled it; the telephone was his companion in calm, conundrums and catastrophes.

But technology was only an enabler. He still was the same Malcolm Fraser. He made a real impact on this country. One of the regrets, I think, is that many of the reforms which Labor underwent in 1983 and 1984 could have been undertaken by the Liberal Party earlier—they were not, for reasons that have been well canvassed. It is appropriate that we honour his service and his contribution to the nation.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to be able to speak about the life of former Prime Minister the Rt Hon. John Malcolm Fraser AC. I remember a fair way into Malcolm Fraser's political career was the first time I began to take some notice of politics. It was 1972, so I was eight years old at the time. My father was quite left orientated—and in fact my family was also, at least around my father—a real supporter of Gough Whitlam.

So 2 December 1972 was an interesting moment. The TV was on and my father was highly excited about the election of Edward Gough Whitlam. It was an interesting time; there is no doubt about it. There was much promise and hope. My father saw it as a very popular thing. Obviously, if he were still alive, he and I would see things entirely differently from each other. But it was an exciting time, and it is interesting to think about what changed in just those three years. And I will speak a little bit about that.

Malcolm Fraser's career in politics started way before that. He was elected as the member for Wannon, and then he rose to be a cabinet minister. Much has been said as well about him accusing Prime Minister Gorton of interfering in his portfolio and how that helped to weaken and bring down Gorton. Fraser returned to the cabinet under Prime Minister McMahon, but it was not long after that, at the end of 1972, that the Whitlam government was elected.

It was after the re-election of the Whitlam government in 1974 that Malcolm Fraser eventually rose to become leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party and, therefore, opposition leader. Then came the series of events that are commonly known as 'the Dismissal', which took place in 1975.

At this time I was 11 and I remember the significant media coverage of those events—not so much the lead-up, not so much the blocking of supply and the reasons and events behind that, but certainly that moment when Gough Whitlam emerged on the stairs of Old Parliament House. There had been the announcement from the Governor-General's aide saying that Prime Minister Gough Whitlam had effectively been sacked and that Malcolm Fraser had been appointed as caretaker Prime Minister. Then there was Gough Whitlam's speech. And there were hundreds there. By the looks of it there were many hundreds of people in front of Old Parliament House. After that, there were a number of protests around the country in outrage. It looked like a lot of people were greatly concerned by what had happened—the politics and the practicalities of what actually happened.

But it was in the election that followed the dismissal that the biggest majority in, I believe, parliamentary history was achieved—a 55-seat majority. And, obviously, if everyone in Australia had been concerned and outraged by Gough Whitlam's dismissal, they certainly did not vote that way in the subsequent election. Malcolm Fraser went on to lead a coalition government for years to come—until 1983, and with great success.

In many ways, particularly on this side, we look upon the years since—the more recent years—and we tend to concentrate far too much on what the Hon. Malcolm Fraser said and did in those years since. He did some simply outstanding things as Prime Minister of this country, and we should always remember that. The member for Boothby referred to his foreign policy activities; to oppose apartheid was a very important thing. What happened with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe was not such a good outcome; there is no doubt about that.

But I would particularly like to concentrate on his work to allow Vietnamese refugees to come to this country. Whilst we should remember that there were a number of boats that arrived in Australia, the vast majority of Vietnamese people left Vietnam by boat but ended up in refugee camps in the region. Hong Kong, for instance, had thousands of Vietnamese refugees.

When we look upon what Malcolm Fraser actually did, he established a Vietnamese refugee intake for this country. We think now about what fabulous contributions Vietnamese Australians have made in the years since, certainly in the electorate of Cowan. In my seat of Cowan, I have in excess of 3,500 people of Vietnamese origin, including many shopkeepers and professionals. The head of the Vietnamese community, Dr Nguyen, is a very prominent general practitioner in Perth. There are many professionals amongst Vietnamese Australians in my electorate. Really, they owe all that to the good grace and the foresight of Malcolm Fraser. I certainly pay tribute to him. Much has been said about the previous Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam's, very negative attitude to the Vietnamese. It is no wonder really that—

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know it was a bipartisanship that was offered to Mr Fraser.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt. On the record, Member for Perth, you can talk about whatever you like, but the reality was—

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is you cannot help yourself.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth will be silent.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not go into the negativity of what Gough Whitlam had to say. Fortunately it was not shared by Malcolm Fraser. It was great to have Malcolm Fraser make that sort of effort for Vietnamese Australians. At the time of Malcolm Fraser's funeral, the Vietnamese Australians were prominent in their acknowledgement of what Malcolm Fraser did for them. It was a good moment in Australia's history. Again, I pay tribute to the work that Malcolm Fraser did to ensure that those people were given safety.

As I said, we often look at the different aspects of someone's life when they have been in public life for so much of their lives. Often some regard as negativity the things we did not like about what somebody did during their lives. But we should never forget that there was great work done as well. There was highly positive and important work done nationally and internationally.

We have to remember that Malcolm Fraser, the 22nd Prime Minister of Australia, was a great Prime Minister. He did some great, important work for our nation and there is no doubt that we should remember him fondly and we should remember him always as a great Australian.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never met Malcolm Fraser, but, like all of us who have participated in this debate, I was touched by and well aware of his remarkable life. I need not recount all of the successes of that life; that has been done by others. I do not feel that I can add much to the economic debates of the seventies and eighties; I was not there. But I can observe that Malcolm Fraser showed remarkable leadership on the most important issue of the second half of the twentieth century: the defeat of the evil of communism.

Sometimes we forget that in the 1970s it was not fashionable to call Soviet communism for the evil that it was. In the seventies, detente with the Soviets was more than a fashion: it was the accepted wisdom. Presidents Nixon and Ford, for understandable reasons, sought to accommodate the Soviet presence rather than confront it. There was a near consensus in the United States, even among conservative Republicans, that the USSR was here to stay. In that decade, the West moved dangerously close to accommodations with the USSR which would have helped to ensure its ongoing survival.

One of Malcolm Fraser's first acts was to rescind Australia's recognition of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as part of the Soviet Union—a decision which had been made in the previous parliament. He correctly recognised that accommodation of the Soviet Union's expansionism was not in the interests of Australia or the wider world. In June 1976, Mr Fraser gave an eloquent speech in this place about the dangers of the Soviet Union. In that speech, he noted that, understandably, 'There is a yearning in the world for peace and security.' But he warned that this yearning should never obscure our view of the hard facts. In that June 1976 speech, he observed that in those times 'unrealistic notions that an age of peace and stability had arrived encouraged a neglect of power realities'. He worried that detente could lead to an overall weakening of the West's position, and said:

…the primary concern is an international environment which could progressively limit the capacities of Australia, her friends, and allies, to advance their interests and ideals, which reduces options, which almost imperceptibly weakens the capacity to pursue our interests and advance the cause of human dignity.

Again, with the benefit of hindsight looking back some 26 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, those words may not appear remarkable. But in 1976 it was not the conventional wisdom that anything other than containment could be pursued as a policy towards the Soviet Union. Containment, as I said, understandable though it was as a policy, also had the very real potential of helping to perpetuate that most evil of systems. In that same speech, Mr Fraser made it clear where he stood on the threat of communism. He said:

The time has come to expect a sign from the USSR that it understands this and that it is serious about reaching global accommodation with the West. A tangible signal is required from the USSR in the form of a restraint in its military expansion. The pace is being set by the USSR, not by the US.

And again, in 1976, that was very much the case. It was only in the 1980s that the Americans really began to catch up and then exceed the pace of development of the military capacity of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 made it very clear that Mr Fraser's concerns about the intentions of the USSR were entirely valid. In supporting President Carter's call for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, of course Malcolm Fraser upset and enraged many Australians, including many Australians involved in sporting fields. But we can only judge a leader by their times, and in 1980 the boycott became symbolic of a hard line against the Soviets. The proposed boycott might have been a mistake; the hard line most certainly was not. I believe that it was the ultimate taking of a hard line by the West which led to the demise of the Soviet Union, and Malcolm Fraser in his public statements and in his policies in the late seventies spoke for a course that was consistent with that.

His abhorrence for communism was also seen in his acceptance of Vietnamese refugees. In the discussion about Mr Fraser's legacy, there has been a lot of debate about whether he was liberal or conservative or a combination of the two. I think that, when you look at his approach to Vietnam, you can see elements of both, strands of both philosophies, because it was liberal to care about the human rights of refugees in Vietnam; it was conservative to do something about it, and 56,000 people benefited from that very practical demonstration of compassion. Many of those people and indeed their descendants live in my electorate of Banks. As the member for Cowan said previously, the Vietnamese community right around Australia holds incredibly deep affection for the memory of Malcolm Fraser because he enabled tens of thousands of people to flee an appalling rule and come to our wonderful country.

I am pleased to have been able to contribute to this debate, and I pass on my condolences to Mr Fraser's family. I certainly think it is important that we all remember his legacy in this parliament and the strong stand he took for freedom in his period of prime ministership.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the condolence motion in respect of the death of Australia's 22nd Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, on 20 March. Malcolm Fraser led the country in a time of great change. While not every decision was applauded, the enduring legacy of many of his decisions is demonstrative of his efforts to truly act in the best interests of Australia.

In a clear demonstration of his connection to the Australian public, he led the Liberal-Country Party coalition to the greatest win in Australian political history, winning 91 seats out of 127 in the House of Representatives. The Australian people had sent a very clear message about what they wanted for their future.

Malcolm Fraser restored economically responsible government and was determined to restore Australia's economic fortunes for future generations.

In my home state of Queensland, Malcolm Fraser declared the Great Barrier Reef area a marine park, prohibited the mining of sand on Fraser Island and banned whaling in Australian waters. Under his leadership five properties were placed on the World Heritage List: the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Willandra Lakes, Lord Howe Island and south-west Tasmania.

In building a fairer, safer Australia, Malcolm Fraser established the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Freedom of information laws were enacted, and the Australian Federal Police was established.

Families too benefited from Fraser's time as Prime Minister. The introduction of family allowance provided direct help for mothers and families. The family income supplement was introduced, along with the lone fathers benefit, and the Office of Child Care was established. Pensioners benefited from a new pensioner housing scheme. Their pensions were automatically indexed, and the means test was replaced by a simpler income test.

His multicultural legacy is so deeply woven into the Australian culture that it is impossible to imagine what our communities would look like without his influence. It is fitting that, having just celebrated Harmony Day on 21 March, we reflect on the influence his strong multicultural efforts had on the fabric of our country. He was instrumental in resettling tens of thousands of Vietnamese people in Australia and established the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. The establishment of the special broadcasting system was instrumental in assimilating the many varied cultures with Australia's, and he introduced the child migrant education program. The result today is communities which are rich, vibrant places, and Australia is proudly renowned for its multiculturalism.

Australia is also known for its athletes, and under Malcolm Fraser's leadership the Australian Institute of Sport was established. The AIS is responsible for the delivery of Australia's international sporting success, and approximately 700 athletes now receive scholarships from the institute each year. Thirty-four years after he officially opened the centre, Malcolm Fraser's legacy continues through the hundreds of athletes who have world-class facilities at their fingertips.

And the building we are all proudly standing in today was approved by Malcolm Fraser in 1978.

Malcolm Fraser's prime ministerial role may have come to an end in 1983, but each and every Australian today experiences the ripples of his leadership when they walk down the street, call on the Commonwealth Ombudsman, take a holiday to the reef or cheer Australian athletes at the Olympics. Malcolm Fraser's contribution to our country is humbling, and I am honoured to be able to speak of his legacy today. My thoughts are with his wife, Tamie, and the Fraser family at this time.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sad passing of Malcolm Fraser has provided an opportunity for much reflection and soul-searching in Australian politics. There is no doubt he was a giant of a man who over the course of his life had been both celebrated and criticised by almost the entire breadth of the political spectrum. In his condolence motion, the Prime Minister summed up the mood in parliament when he stated:

Our challenge is not to say goodbye; it is to be more magnanimous in his death than we were in his life and to acknowledge this giant, who was surely one of us.

Many tributes and memorial speeches have been written since Fraser's passing, and most have covered the highlights of his career more eloquently than I could ever hope to do. But what I would like to see become the focus of the discussion going forward—and one I hope to start—is how we might emulate Fraser's vision for this country in the future. To put my position most clearly, let me state that on matters of human rights, multiculturalism, racial equality, racial discrimination and asylum seekers I stand with Malcolm Fraser. I am proud to be a part of the modern day broad church they call the Liberal Party; a dichotomy of staunchly conservative economic principles and, for me, a strong sense of social justice resulting from my Christian beliefs and upbringing. That is certainly not to say that I agree with everything Fraser has ever stated on the above topics, but the beliefs he stood for are the ones that I hope will play a more central role in our thinking into the future for the benefit of both the Liberal Party and Australia.

In 1977 the Fraser government adopted a formal policy for a humanitarian commitment to admit refugees for resettlement, resulting in one of the most generous per capita humanitarian intake programs in the world and nearly 50,000 Vietnamese refugees being welcomed to our shores by 1979. The economic and cultural benefits of his embrace of immigration, humanitarianism and multiculturalism are still being seen today nearly 40 years on. I strongly believe the same benefits would be seen in another 40 years with a more ambitious policy in this area. I mention 40 years, as the 2015 Intergenerational report has just recently been released. The IGR is a social compact between generations, and what it aims to do is to raise our minds from the immediate policy cycle and look down the road to see what the country will look like in four decades. It is interesting to note that in this report net migration is forecast at 215,000 per annum, and as part of that figure the humanitarian intake covers 13,750 places growing to 18,750 in the next four years.

According to the UN human rights commission there were 13 million refugees and 46.3 million persons of concern globally by mid-2014. Many of these people are fleeing war and conflicts; some of which involve Australian troops. The need for humanitarian assistance has never been stronger. There have been various attempts to have a discussion on this policy over the years. Fraser himself wrote a submission to the government in 2012 arguing that the annual humanitarian intake should be increased to 25,000 and that this could be done without the need for legislative change.

Looking into the details and the migration assumptions of the IGR we see a strong economic case for increasing migration levels as well—the way that we have seen in the 40 years since Fraser changed this. I have seen, like Fraser saw in you, the eagerness to participate in the communities in my electorate of people coming here under humanitarian visas; the appreciation of families who were a few short years ago facing death or torture on a daily basis; and the determination and giving nature of refugees who, having only settled here recently themselves, have set up charitable organisations to assist others in our communities that are in need of assistance.

I refer all the way back to Fraser's inaugural address to the Institute of Multicultural Affairs in 1981. There are points of that speech that ring just as true today. He said:

Multiculturalism is about diversity, not division—it is about interaction not isolation.

In the same speech Fraser also pointed out:

It is perhaps the greatest failure of all to be blinded to real possibilities by myth and prejudice.

I have not just seen the possibilities but also the real results in my electorate of Reid and across Western Sydney of the policy positions that the visionary Malcolm Fraser took. I hope that in my time here in parliament I may in some way push the debate to consider topics that we at this point in the political cycle consider taboo. I thank you very much, and I honour Malcom Fraser's legacy.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 17:57 to 19:30