Malcolm Fraser, media confounder

The sudden passing of Malcolm Fraser, Australia's 22nd Prime Minister, has resulted in journalists across the nation scribbling away furiously in their attempts to summarise the man's political life. 

These summaries have all covered similar ground in trying to explain Fraser. 'Fraser transformed himself from the patrician Liberal...to a vocal proponent for progressive causes often at odds with his own party.' said the Guardian. News stated that he 'a public transformation occurred after he lost office,' as did the Conversation, more than once. Yahoo7 claimed he became 'an unlikely hero of the Left.' InDaily called him a 'paradox'. 

So, what is it about Fraser that seems to have confounded the media? Why did Miranda Devine describe him as having moved 'from extreme right to extreme left'? Well, I can't explain all of that, as I do not know how anything Fraser did could be described as either, but the gist of what she is saying is what they're all saying - he was a PM on the 'right', and once he retired he became 'left'.

So, what did Fraser do?

Firstly, let's look at his record as Prime Minister. Economically, Fraser was expected at the time to be part of the emerging neo-liberal dominance across the West, and criticism of him at the time was along these lines. In hindsight, this didn't occur. In actual fact, Fraser was a moderating force against neo-liberal elements within his party and the public service. Fraser, like many politicians of his immediate post-war era, had a Keynesian economic view, which he blended with classic liberal beliefs. This kind of in-between position meant that his public service cuts were too big to some, and not big enough to others. Medibank was not eradicated, but slowly dismantled. Family benefits came in as tax rebates for dependent children were abolished. Government spending slowed, but never deliberately shrunk.

On deregulation, Fraser's government was more pliant. Exchange rates, interest rates, foreign bank entries and control over capital movements were all deregulated under Fraser's government to some degree. None of these were total, and in actual fact it took until the Hawke/Keating duumvirate came into power before these were completed. But it was under Fraser that these plans got going, before the Treasury and Reserve Bank thought it was necessary.

By today's standards, none of this can be considered especially 'right'. Furthermore, even at the time he was at odds with younger members of his party (including Treasurer John Howard) who wanted harder cuts. The gently, gently approach to economics has been argued as one of the reasons the economy collapsed in Fraser's later years. But the fact that it was a Labor government who managed to push through deregulation, and a Liberal government avoided doing so, suggests that perhaps the difference between the parties isn't as clear as it often stated.

When it comes to social policies, Fraser's strengths were in areas that weren't overly politicised at the time. Human rights (especially for Aborigines) and immigration issues were not a source of political division. For the most part, Fraser carried on where the Whitlam government had left off, who had in turn carried on from the previous Liberal governments. In fact, immigration and human rights had never been a particularly partisan issue. After all, the union movement was a strong supporter of the White Australia policy. As the policy was removed, the parties moved as well. It is only in recent years that it has become an issue that the parties heavily disagree on.

That's not to say there weren't elements who disagreed with the open immigration policies of the Fraser government. But, interestingly, those elements didn't come from his party, but from the public service. It was the Department of Immigration who first became alarmed about people arriving by boat, and suggested that the boats either be stopped before they arrived, or that those arriving be sent to a 'reception centre', as they were 'queue jumpers'. Cabinet did not take these suggestions up.

He was also an early environmentalist, successfully protecting Kakadu, Fraser Island and the Great Barrier Reef with certain policies. This, again, is supposedly at odds with today's 'right'. He also pushed for the Franklin River to be protected from damming, although this was also something not completed until the Hawke government. 

These economic and social policies followed Fraser into foreign policy. He pushed for free trade, which Australia needed as an raw material exporter, while also taking the forefront in promoting majority rule in Rhodesia.

Fraser's time as Prime Minister, then, may actually be a bit confusing for anyone trying to view it under the lens of the left-right spectrum. Economically, he attempting to walk the line between liberalism and Keynesianism. Socially, he focused on issues that were, at the time, bilateral, and today are arguably leaning to the 'left'. Despite this, it's claimed he was just another typical 'right' politician. This suggests either collective memory loss, or a failure in the portrayal of our politics.

But there was more to this. Fraser was meant to have moved from 'right' to 'left' after leaving the Parliament. We know he already wasn't 'right' in Parliament, but did he change his beliefs after leaving anyway?

Put simply - no. Fraser rarely commented on economic matters after he left office, but his foreign policy beliefs suggested that nothing changed. But on social issues, he was vigourous in his support of human rights, working for various think tanks and becoming particularly involved in South Africa's transition away from apartheid. He became increasingly critical of the politics of Australia, especially that of his own party, regarding immigration. By 2009, he had had enough, and left the Liberals after Malcolm Turnbull lost the leadership.

One area that he did move on was his policy towards the US. During the Cold War, he was suspicious of the USSR and not a supporter of detente, allying himself to the US and previous governments had. But in later life he began suggesting that Australia move away from its close ties with the US, instead being a more independent nation. In actuality, this fits in well with his foreign policy in office, which attempted to place Australia in a greater position in world politics. This is also about as close as it gets to a movement to the 'left'.

There have been suggestions that the Liberal Party moved away from Fraser, which is a reasonable argument. Neo-liberalism has slowly taken root without the party, though there's always the sense that there are plenty of members that aren't huge fans of it. Human rights issues, on the other hand, have become major partisan issues, which has changed the nature of politics in this country.

But this does not account for the initial description of Fraser as being of the 'right'. Fraser's classic liberalism meant he was, at the time, a natural member of the Liberal Party - but the Liberal Party was not always 'right' in the same way it is implied. That Fraser should be suggested to be such is a failure of the left-right spectrum, and as long as it is used, the media will be unable to grasp the nature of liberalism correctly.