John Menadue stayed on as the most senior public servant in the land, after the trauma of the Dismissal. In this 5-part series he details what life was like working with PM Fraser. Given his closeness to Whitlam, some of his conclusions are surprising. 

Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was an inspiration to work with on immigration and multicultural affairs. The contradictions in the man kept multiplying.

His commitment to non-discriminatory immigration was deep-seated. He buried White Australia as no other prime minister had. In 1966, the Holt Government had begun marginally changing White Australia. The Labor Party in Government in 1972–75, endorsed the policy of non-discrimination in immigration. But the immigration intake under Labor was so minimal that the new policy was never put to the test. In 1975, population growth due to immigration was the lowest for 30 years and the lowest this century if we exclude the Depression and war years.

It was Fraser who was responsible for accepting many Indo-Chinese refugees after the fall of Saigon in 1975. Those refugees, supported by the generous Australian community response, were the decisive turning point in moving Australia away from White Australia.

Fraser picked up the migrant resettlement programs of the Whitlam Government, particularly the English-learning programs, and ran hard with them. Petro Georgiou, on his staff and later the Liberal member for Kooyong, was very influential, as was Frank Galbally from an old Irish Catholic Labor family in Victoria. Funding for English language programs was greatly increased, along with programs for part-time ethnic schools.

The Fraser Government extended ethnic radio and established SBS television. Petro Georgiou and Brian Johns, who remained a senior officer in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Fraser, were the key drivers for SBS. Fraser got on well with Brian Johns. He saw him as professional and straight. Years later, Johns was to head SBS and the ABC.

Fraser encountered a lot of opposition from within the Liberal Party and the ABC and its supporters over the establishment of SBS, but he believed, correctly in my view, that the elitist ABC should have better served the non-English-speaking section of the Australian community. What was required was a specialist, more focused broadcasting service to meet the needs of those who were being neglected by mainstream media. The Broadcasting and Television Act of 1977 provided for the establishment of SBS to provide multicultural radio and TV services. SBS was an important achievement of the Fraser Government.

The origin of the Fraser Government’s legislation on Aboriginal land rights was the Woodward Royal Commission, established by the Whitlam Government. The implementing bill was awaiting introduction into the Senate on 11 November 1975. I did what I could in the department under Fraser to advance bipartisanship on Aboriginal affairs. In the first year of the Fraser Government, Parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976, which allowed traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory to be granted to Aboriginal Land Trusts. This gave Aborigines freehold land outside reserves. Three Land Councils were established, and the office of Aboriginal Land Commissioner was created. Ian Viner was the Minister.

These were all significant achievements in immigration and Aboriginal affairs by Fraser. It was something which he believed in passionately. I found it a very pleasant surprise. As Prime Minister, he would certainly have said sorry to the stolen children.

I didn’t expect that my job with Fraser would be long term. I provided some useful continuity for him after the dismissal. At the same time, I was certain that I would want to move on, to recuperate and get my bearings again after the searing events of 1975 and 1976. I wasn’t at home with the hard men of the Liberal Party.

My interest in Japan was well known. So much so that Murdoch had told me on 7 November 1975, four days before the dismissal, that I would be posted by Fraser to Tokyo after the election.

Within the bureaucracy I pursued my interest in Japan, particularly the establishment of an Australia-Japan Foundation. Mick Shann, the Australian Ambassador to Japan 1975–77, had proposed to the Department of Foreign Affairs such a foundation to promote the noneconomic relations between the two countries. The department sat on the proposal. It would encroach on its territory, even though cultural relations were always a ‘Cinderella’, and an afterthought in the department. I persuaded Whitlam as Prime Minister that he should legislate to set up the foundation. It was one of the bills on the notice paper when Kerr dismissed him. It was one of the first bills introduced by the new Fraser Government in 1976. The second reading speech we had prepared for Whitlam to make on the afternoon of 11 November 1975 was almost identical to the second reading speech that Fraser delivered on 19 February 1976. The foundation was established a few months later. I was appointed to the first board of the foundation. Because of earlier obstruction by the Department of Foreign Affairs, the new Board reported to Fraser and not to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Peacock. With his antipathy to Peacock, Fraser would also have had his own reasons to keep the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs off the foundation.

In public speeches about Japan, I spoke of the need for people-to-people ties to augment economic relations, build linkages between nongovernment organisations, improve media coverage by both sides, and of the promotion of Japanese language studies in Australian schools and lowering airfares between Australia and Japan. I was practising my new agenda.

I sensed from Fraser’s office that my departure was imminent. I started getting curt responses to memos. A bit of static was coming through. So, when Fraser raised the possibility of me going to Japan, on the afternoon of 9 September 1976, I wasn’t surprised. I welcomed the opportunity to move from the position which, for over two years, had been very exhausting and difficult. It had involved a lot of work, some criticism and, I hoped, some achievements as well. Here was a chance to do other things and not be as dependent as I had been as chief adviser to two prime ministers or a newspaper proprietor.

In the statement on 17 September 1976, about my appointment to Japan, Fraser kindly referred to my ‘competence, impartiality and discretion’ and that I ‘had given unstintingly of [my] energies and managerial skills in serving as the confidential adviser to the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the important transitional period of the Liberal/ National Country Party Government as [I] had done for its predecessor’.

I didn’t hang around and left the department on 12 November. I had four months before I commenced in Tokyo, spent mainly on leave and briefings in preparation for my new assignment.

Since my two and a half years as Head of Prime Minister and Cabinet we have seen continual changes in the Commonwealth Public Service, and to the status and tenure of heads of departments to make them more responsive and accountable. My appointment had been the first major break from the traditional ‘non-political’ career service with its permanent tenure.

In more recent times debate has continued as to whether all these changes over the years have affected the capacity and willingness of departmental secretaries to provide ‘frank and fearless’ advice. Do better salaries and contract appointments rather than permanent tenure promote honest advice? Frankly, I don’t think they do. Neither am I convinced that appointments from outside the public service are inherently better or worse. The evidence doesn’t seem compelling either way.

In my experience as a CEO in government and business and as a board member, the issue is one of personal authenticity and experience rather than one of tenure or money or even management training. By personal authenticity I mean being publicly true to one’s private values. I am confident that it is within that authenticity that frank and fearless advice is most likely to be found. It is true of both the public and private sectors.

This is an updated extract from _Things You Learn Along the Way_, 1999 John Menadue

Tomorrow: Working with PM Fraser - Parting words - Part 5