In July of 1988 I visited Israel, Italy and Britain. In London I saw the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who had reached the zenith of her power and influence among centre-right adherents around the world. There was great value in the visit for me. I returned to Australia via the west in order to address the state conference of the WA division of the Liberal Party at Esperance. It was here that I made the first of my ‘One Australia’ speeches.
For some time I had been ruminating about the policy of multiculturalism. Inaugurated by Whitlam, embellished by Fraser, continued by Hawke, it was a policy with which I had never felt comfortable. Leaving aside for a moment the separate issue of the White Australia policy, Australia’s post-World War II immigration policy had been built on the principle of assimilation. We would draw people from many countries, but when they came here they would become Australians. They would be assimilated into the host culture; they were then called New Australians.
That was a term with which I had grown up, and which I had always imagined accurately described the process. They were to become Australians and were new to our country; hence the term seemed to me to make good sense. I never believed that people who used the term did so in a patronising or offensive fashion. As time passed, however, and subsequent generations were born in Australia to those original ‘New’ Australians, the term was no longer appropriate.
Sensing the political power of individual ethnic groups, Whitlam embraced multiculturalism. There was to be more emphasis under the policy of multiculturalism on the individual characteristics of different ethnic groups. Assimilation was discarded as a term, it being described as too patronising and Anglo-Celtic-centric. It was one of those areas where nuance and degrees of emphasis mattered a lot. If multiculturalism simply meant that there should be a greater emphasis on honouring the culture and land of one’s birth, then nobody could possibly object. By contrast, if it meant entrenching differences of culture without acknowledging the mainstream character of the host culture, then more difficult considerations were raised.
My view was that Australia should emphasise the common characteristics of the Australian identity. We should emphasise our unifying points rather than our areas of difference. I extended this thinking to our approach to Indigenous policy issues, where I disagreed with Bob Hawke’s flirtation with the notion of a treaty. These were considerations I had in mind when I gave my speech in Esperance.
At the time of my Esperance speech, there was separate debate in Australia about the pace of Asian immigration. Clearly there were some people totally, and wrongly, opposed to any migration from Asia. There were others who were simply concerned about the speed of change in particular localities. My response to several questions on this issue, during two radio interviews, was to state simply that if it were in the interests of social cohesion to slow the pace of Asian immigration a little then that should occur.
The initial reaction of the public was supportive of what they saw, not as a racial outburst, but a commonsense remark about the rapidity of change. That had been my intention. I should have realised that my political opponents, and critics elsewhere, would seize on the comments and use them to attack me, as introducing racial considerations into debate on Australia’s migration program. Bob Hawke exploited the situation very cleverly by introducing a motion into the parliament declaring that considerations of race should never be used as a criterion to determine flows of immigration to Australia.
When this motion was discussed in our party room, some, including Ian Macphee and others, argued that we should simply support Hawke’s resolution and the matter would then disappear. I argued against this, believing that, if we were to do this, it would be seen as a repudiation of my earlier statements. I had got myself into a bind and was certain to be damaged regardless of how the matter was handled. In the final analysis the party resolved to vote against the resolution. Four of our number, including Philip Ruddock, crossed the floor to support the resolution.
The whole issue had done me considerable damage. It had divided the Liberal Party and diverted attention from the original issue of substance I had introduced during my speech in Western Australia, namely the real doubts I had about multiculturalism. It was a case of having antagonised everybody. Those who supported multiculturalism disagreed strongly with me. Those who may have agreed with my views on multiculturalism lost track of the debate as the Asian-immigration issue intruded, and those who might have agreed, on careful analysis, with what I had said about the pace of Asian immigration, felt that having raised the issue I had then gone quiet on it. I had been wrong to make the original statements on the pace of Asian immigration.
My handling of the issue lost me the support of some press columnists such as the Australian‘s Greg Sheridan, with whom I had had a good relationship and who over the years had voiced support for many of my positions on other matters. The whole episode weakened my leadership authority within the Liberal Party.
In December 1988 I launched Future Directions, a policy and philosophical manifesto to which Graham Wynn of the Liberal secretariat made a major contribution. In time it would be seen as the document which foretold much of the philosophical direction of the government I would lead from 1996. Its themes were consistent and its policy content strong. It was a classic statement of the economic liberalism and social conservatism which would guide my years as Prime Minister. It depicted the traditional family in front of a white picket fence. There was much initial derision towards the manifesto, but a great deal of that receded as its thrust struck a real chord with middle Australia. I had tapped into something with a subliminal appeal to traditional Australian notions of stability and security in their family and national life.
Months later, and after I had been removed as Liberal leader in May 1989, Rod Cameron of Australian National Opinion Polls (ANOP), the long-time ALP pollster, and a real professional in his business, told me that Future Directions had really begun to bite, that I was ‘onto something’ and that, by implication, the Labor Party was mightily relieved that I had been removed. The value of this document was not only in what it said but also its easy identification with its author. No political leader can convincingly advocate a policy or a set of values unless he or she genuinely believes in them. I believed in every element of Future Directions. It told Australians that I was very much a conviction politician.
Although the Hawke Government remained in a strong political position, my own leadership appeared more secure in the early part of 1989. Unbeknown to me, John Elliott had quietly put his leadership hopes on hold at the end of the previous year, and the coming together of his supporters and those who wanted Peacock to replace me had begun.
Emboldened by the strong reception received by Future Directions, I became more assertive on a range of issues. I persuaded the NSW division not to field a Liberal candidate against the National Party for the Gwydir by-election made necessary by the retirement of Ralph Hunt. The by-election brought into parliament John Anderson, who was to become my longest-serving deputy prime minister. His maiden speech was that of a person with very strong values and a deep and practical Christianity, who would apply what he believed to the daily business of politics. I liked him from the start. John remains one of the most genuinely decent people I have met in public life.
Disunity between the Liberal and National parties had been such a negative for us at the 1987 election that I felt it essential, where possible, to overcompensate when it came to the two parties working together. I therefore set myself the task of achieving a joint Senate ticket between the Liberal and National parties in Victoria, feeling that if it could be brought about, thus emulating the situation in New South Wales, it would not only achieve the beneficial outcome of removing the need for three-cornered contests involving sitting members of each party, it would also be a symbol of unity.
Having directly lobbied the Victorian executive, and with the enthusiastic backing of Michael Kroger, the new and most effective Victorian president, I carried the day with the Liberals, many of whom had been reluctant, and, with Ian Sinclair’s assistance, the leadership of the parliamentary National Party and organisation also came on board.
Jeff Kennett, the Liberal Opposition leader in Victoria,