Fed: Chaney rejects accusation that Fraser squibbed it
By Max Blenkin01 Jan 2009 12:01 AM
Eds: Embargoed until 0001 (AEDT), January 1, 2009
CANBERRA, Jan 1 AAP - Twenty-five years after the defeat of prime minister Malcolm Fraser, some critics believe he squibbed it as far as using his parliamentary majorities to implement real economic reforms goes.
Nothing could be further from the truth, says Fred Chaney, who was minister for administrative services and Aboriginal affairs under Fraser.
Mr Chaney, the guest speaker for the National Archives of Australia's release of the 1978 cabinet documents, said Fraser, fully supported by influential Country Party ministers, stood proudly in an economic tradition that had served Australia reasonably well.
Australia had a fixed currency and policies designed to protect industry.
Mr Chaney said that old order brought about lots of good. "But we had run out of legs and we did need substantial change. Malcolm was the end of the old order," he said.
"I think there are harsh retrospective judgments. Those judgments are totally unfair."
"It is very fashionable to look back and say they were a bunch of squibs. But that was not the perceived wisdom at the time."
The Fraser government, elected in 1975 and re-elected in December 1977, enjoyed a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.
More importantly, it enjoyed an absolute Senate majority, with 35 of 64 seats.
Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, former industry minister John Button and others have since accused Fraser of squandering a favourable position by not proceeding with the types of economic reforms subsequently undertaken by the Hawke Labor government in 1983-90.
Mr Chaney said Fraser was portrayed at the time as a hard-hearted tough guy.
"And now he is being presented as some sort of guy who didn't grasp the nettle. That is a bit of rewriting of history."
Mr Chaney said the significant issue of 1978 for the coalition was the emergence of a strand of thought within the Liberal Party advocating fundamental economic reforms.
However, the so-called Liberal dries failed to win any significant economic reforms during Fraser's time in office.
"But its significance for Australia is that that battle was firmly won within the (coalition) opposition from 1983 to 1990.
"That was the dominant view," he said.
"The significance of that is that the Hawke government's very important economic reforms of 1983-90 were not impeded by the opposition in the way that they could have. Those reforms could have been made much more difficult."
Mr Chaney said the lack of impediment on the part of the Liberals was illustrated by John Howard after Labor's 1983 budget.
"He came round to my office and said: `What do you think of the budget'. I said: `I think it's bloody good'. He said: `So do I'.
Mr Chaney said the 1978 cabinet papers were a reminder of the struggle that the Fraser government had in dealing with economic issues.
He said the problems the country faced in 1978, including a budget deficit and high unemployment, were issues which seemed completely foreign to Australia for most of 2008.
"It does seem there are some very powerful lessons for government today in the great difficulty that the Fraser government had in coming to grips with the idea that there might need to be a new economic order," he said.
Mr Chaney remains a great admirer of Fraser.
"He provided leadership of an unusual level of moral content. He also had some of the attributes that people publicly attribute to the present prime minister. He liked to be across everything," he said.
"I always found he was totally briefed on anything I raised with him. He had a huge command of detail."
In contrast Fraser's successor, former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke, showed a great capacity to stand back and do some big picture stuff really well, giving his ministers a higher degree of freedom, he said.
Since leaving politics, Fraser attracted the ire of some former colleagues through his outspoken views on such issues as the coalition government's treatment of asylum seekers.
Mr Chaney rejected suggestions Fraser had changed in retirement.
"To parade the notion that Malcolm has in some way become this old guy who has gone soft or left, it is just nonsense," he said.
"The record of the time is absolutely clear that, on those issues, he was as staunch then as he has been in his retirement. I am grateful that he has continued to be a public voice. That is my view, which is not the view of a lot of my ex-colleagues."
