National Observer Home > No. 46 - Spring 2000 > Editorial Comment

The Disturbing Transformation of Mr. Malcolm Fraser

Many will remember how, in 1999, television advertisements showed Mr. Malcolm Fraser and Mr. Gough Whitlam, solemnly but apparently  not altogether comfortably together, advising viewers to vote in favour of a republic.  A general reaction was that in fact their appearance disadvantaged their cause.  Both Mr. Fraser and Mr. Whitlam have long lost their credibility, for many reasons.

Mr. Whitlam is of course remembered for the unsuccessful policies of his government from 1972 - 1975 and his aberrant behaviour on his dismissal and overwhelming rejection by the Australian electorate.  If the worst Australian Prime Minister were to be sought, Mr. Whitlam would have few rivals.

Mr. Fraser was not a successful Prime Minister, although few of his actions were as positively harmful as those of the Whitlam government.  Mr. Fraser's principal initial failing was that at a time when he had an overwhelming majority in the Parliament, and in fact the control of both Houses, he did not act sufficiently to remedy the consequences of unsound past policies or to strengthen Australia's economic and societal positions.  His forays into international affairs also had apparently curious motivations.  His sanctimonious statements attacking the South African government and supporting Mugabe in Zimbabwe are now recalled in a context where black rule in South Africa is degenerating into lawlessness and Mugabe, who is corrupt and showing ever increasing signs of mental illness, is driving Zimbabwe into racial strife and economic ruin.

Many observers expected that Mr. Fraser's bizarre episode in Memphis after he was voted out of office, where he was reported to have lost his trousers after an episode with a female companion, would inhibit him from continuing with frequent advice to all and sundry after his retirement.  But unfortunately his enthusiasm for putting forward his views has continued.

Not only has Mr. Fraser continued to advise sceptical audiences how the world should be run, but it appears that he has made a particular point of aligning himself against the interests that he was formerly perceived to represent.  It is perhaps a matter of speculation why this should be so, and not all the speculations are favourable to him.

Most recently, for example, Mr. Fraser succeeded in obtaining the publicity that he apparently seeks by criticising the Australian government and supporting "stolen generation" claims (which have been noted in the National Observer to be in most cases either without basis or fraudulent).  On 24 August 2000 he made a speech in Darwin challenging the important recent decision of the Federal Court in the Gunner and Cubillo cases (in which it has been held that the part-Aboriginal plaintiffs had failed to show that the Commonwealth had acted wrongly).  Mr. Fraser enthused, "When I first read of the happenings in Darwin's Federal Court and noted the statements made on behalf of the Commonwealth, I wondered what we had learnt."  The more apposite enquiry, however, is what had Mr. Fraser learnt?  Had he read carefully all of the Federal Court decision when he made his much-publicised comments?  If he had not, why did he make these comments?  If he had, what legal training could he draw upon in order to criticise a decision based on many months of careful argument and adduction of evidence by the interested parties?  In arguing that the removal of part-Aboriginal children from Aboriginal communities (which in many instances mistreated, abused and even killed part-Aboriginal children) was a contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by Australia in 1948, what desire to proceed on the actual facts was Mr. Fraser demonstrating?

The stage has been reached where Mr. Fraser's public advice on so many issues is no longer to be taken seriously.  It is apparent that to follow his advice would not be in Australia's interests.  Mr. Fraser has had a long run - too long, most would agree.  It is time that he withdrew from the public area, and left the giving of advice to others who are more balanced in their attitudes.

National Observer No. 46 - Spring 2000