Fraser Anning was elected to the Australian Senate with only 19 first preference votes, including probably his own. But his maiden parliamentary speech inspired 81,000 views on his Facebook page and has sparked a national furor.
Anning, a former soldier and publican from Queensland and ex-member of the far right One Nation party, reignited Australia’s always simmering race debate with calls to ban immigration for Muslims and non-English speakers, and return to the “White Australia” policy of the 1950s.
He controversially claimed that a plebiscite would be a “final solution” to the nation’s immigration “problem.” Afterwards, Anning incredulously claimed he had no idea that “final solution” was a term used by Nazi Germany for its holocaust against Jews during World War II.
His inflammatory speech, made on August 14, was perhaps the most outspoken articulation of anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric by any Australian politician, and rivaled the vitriol served up in the right wing Australian media by a growing band of xenophobic opinion columnists.
Coming only days after Australia’s population reached the 25 million level, an event which also fanned the immigration debate, Anning’s speech laid bare the polarized division in Australian society on the issue of race and immigration, which has been a constant theme for several decades.
Describing himself as a “conservative Christian” and an “Australian nationalist,” Anning’s speech pined for the Australia of 50 years ago, when it was a “cohesive, predominantly Anglo-Celtic nation,” as he put it.
“Ethno-cultural diversity, which is known to undermine social cohesion, has been allowed to rise to dangerous levels in many suburbs,” he said, after describing immigration levels as “unsustainable.”
“We as a nation are entitled to insist that those who are allowed to come here predominantly reflect the historic European Christian composition of Australian society and embrace our language, culture and values as a people,” he said.
He added: “Historically, the one immigrant group here and in other Western nations that has consistently shown itself to be the least able to assimilate and integrate is Muslims. I believe that the reasons for ending all further Muslim immigration are both compelling and self-evident.”
Anning claimed that Australia’s first act of terrorism was perpetrated by two Muslims who “opened fire on a picnic train of innocent women and children” in 1915. “Muslim immigrants have been a problem ever since,” he said.
Earlier this year Anning advocated giving refugee visas to white South African farmers he claimed faced “genocide” from violence in their homeland. At the time, he said: “They’re a similar type of people to us, with similar views and Christian values.”
His speech left fellow Senator Anne Aly from Western Australia, the first Muslim woman elected to the Federal Parliament, in tears in the Senate and provoked a storm of condemnation.
A majority of senators refused to shake hands with Anning, as is the custom after maiden speeches, and some of those who did said they wished they hadn’t. Senator Derryn Hinch said he had followed tradition “and shook this unworthy man’s hand and I then went home and washed my own.”
But while Anning unleashed a bipartisan backlash, his words only emboldened his supporters, many of whom claim the Queensland Senator is only saying what the “silent majority” is thinking.
This silent majority were out in force on Anning’s Facebook page, with congratulatory messages and even calls for him to become Prime Minister. Others likened him to an Australian Donald Trump.
Anning’s comments, to be sure, did not come out of nowhere. They reflect an ongoing culture war which, with Australian nuances, echoes much of the frustration and dissatisfaction which catapulted Trump to office in the United States.
Australia’s polarization is also between the regions and cities. Where the cities are multicultural and cosmopolitan mixing pots, the regions are still bastions of the old Anglophile Australia championed by Anning.
Meanwhile, rising regional alienation from the urban policies of the so-called “elites” in Canberra is arguably fragmenting Australian society as never before.
As the national population hit over 25 million this month, the debate over immigration is raging. Proponents of a “Big Australia” say immigration is crucial for continued fast economic growth. Opponents, on the other hand, see a frightening transformation of Australia’s cultural mix.
The controversy was stirred last week over comments from local Alt-Right columnist Andrew Bolt, who write that “tidal waves of new tribes” were dividing Australia. Immigration, said Bolt, was tantamount to “colonization” and turning the country “from a home to a hotel.”
According to the 2016 Census, 28% of Australians were born overseas, the highest percentage of any country. A majority of that percentage were born in Asia. Forty-nine percent of the population are either first or second generation migrants, the census said. Muslims, constitute only 2.6% of the national population, the census showed.
Anning’s plea for a “final solution” called for a national plebiscite on immigration. On his Facebook page, his supporters claimed that the result of any plebiscite was assured: Australia would vote against immigration and Anning would be vindicated.
The census results, however, show that there is a very different silent majority than the anti-immigration one mobilized by Anning’s speech.
There may not be many Muslims, but Australia’s ethnicity is highly diverse. Given the opportunity to express their views, a larger silent majority might vote for a very different “final solution” than the one advocated by Anning.
Ahson Aftab do you skulk around the interenet trying to demonstrate your knowledge of something? give it a rest sport. you sure a sGod dont know much about OZ.XX
Ahson Aftab In your dreams whacker. They pour in in droves from East and South Asia and the Middle East, the old brain drain they cant get enough of us.
Ahson Aftab What kind of a nig nog are you sweetness?
yashad rizvi that is the phoniest log in page I have ever seen. XX
The white Australia policy was set up by Labor, and removed by the Libs…. althought Whitlam took credit for it.
Whatever the ab’s called the place it was not Australia. Aus was founded by the British, using alot of criminals from the British Isles.
A successful country, despite the polies.
Ever been there ? Just like Ireland (South) refuses to acknowledge the 100k men who died in WW1 (ok for a foreign power, but they were still Irish) or that Dev’ supported the Nazis.
History is indeed uncomfortable.
Mary Machen Obviously you have no scooby-doo. Another out of touch Leftie.
Give up your house, and give it back to the aboriginies if you feel so strongly.
I note the ‘Abos’ are still not part of the Aussie ‘nation’, despite iving on the continet for twenty six [or so] centuries. Wot a gabshite.
Yashad Rizvi What is a najib? i think you have spent too long in the comfortable suburbs stufdying gender studies. where did your parents come from? Hmn?
Champagne Socialist.
Enjoy your State-funded pension while the Working Class deal with crumbling infrastructure, competition for low paid jobs from the 3rd world and ‘burbs where people reject western values (try googling najib & FGM).
Enjoying your cafe late and crushed avo’ ?
Fow Western politics to work people have to be afraid. FFs how do you frighten an Australian? We have no neighbours and few enemies. We aerwe probably the most secure country on earth. So the poliies have to make something up. Im old kids, i remember OZ suburbia in the 50s it was not a good place to be. The follwing years so so much improvement on so many levels attributable to immigration. It is only recently that being cruel and defamatory to immigrants of any colour but white has become an political bonanza. Anning has opened his stupid yap and look at the result. he prepresents few and if he does not sort himself out PDQ his political career will be short and shameful.
With all the usual rubbish pushed by many journalists when stories like this arise, it is all to clear the lack of understanding, deliberate or otherwise, of the rising disenchanted of the electorate with high migration. What would have been the proper manner to deal with this was to clearly say much of the terminology used in this speech was simply attention seeking rhetoric. The journalist could then have raised the real issue of the speech. That is unpopular immigration numbers. There is available a huge amount of unbiased evidence to support this. Sadly this journalist and many of his ilk ignore that. One could simply refer to studies undertaken by Katherine Betts or Dr Bob Birrell for the Australian Population Research Institute to understand the rising number of people who want current level of immigration stopped (54%). Further how public opinion on immigration is ignored and/or suppressed by both sides of politics in Australia. The vast difference between political candidates (of all major parties) and voters on immigration is simply staggering. As such we continue to have ongoing social engineering to achieve the current model of multiculturalism that will progressively undermine political stability and debate. The support of the current media and political parties for a immigration policy that continues to have the potential to kill our citizens is not acceptable. While this continues speeches like this will continue.
Australia was historically European & white… hmm? Okay…
Guess nobody else lived there, the Europeans have always been there.
Lachlan Coquhoun. I am so glad you stated who the true ‘majority’ is according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. But that is not denying the ‘xenophobic’ divide between liberal cosmopolitan urban and conservative rural Australia and a strong undercurrent of a ‘White’ Australian agenda that all ‘coloured’ immigrants assimilate and become ‘bananas’ or ‘coconuts’. Fraser Anning’s senatorial maiden speech of a manifesto to return to a ‘White Australia Policy’ and for a total ban on Muslim immigration is however taking xenophobia beyond Australian-nationalism. This is a total rejection of (1) the Aborigines as the original natives of the land and current efforts for reconciliation and restoration of self-esteem and dignity to our First People (2) the current multicultural (no longer Anglo- Saxon) profile of our population and (3) our contiguous physical and geographical location to Asia in what is now the Asian century. Can you imagine the geopolitical economic and political consequences if Australia were to follow Fraser Anning? Sure, Anning is protected by Parliamentary Privilege. If he were a man, and subject to the same rights and extent to and of free speech legally allowed he should have the courage to broadcast his message publicly. Of course we want Australia to be uniquely ocker Australian but multiculturally as it s and evolving in the different colours and complexion and filigree of a magic carpet tapestry in the refrain of Advance Australia Fair.
Vincent Cheok
Too much stereotyping
Good article. I can see two major causes: Australia’s infrastructure is inadequate to deal with the high immigration policy of the government resulting in discontent – long commutes to work, high cost of housing and rising rates of homelessness. Australia’s government is not reflecting the present population mix but is still almost exclusively of anglo background. This causes a major disconnect between the government and the majority of the population. No wonder these extreme views are simmering. Immigration needs to come down to a more sustainable level, Australia has one of the highest population growth rates in the world which the politicians see as a way to keep themselves in power by producing never ending growth. At what cost?
Arthur Micol