Page 575 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is a very divisive issue and it has put national media attention on the ACT for all the wrong reasons. There has been editorial comment on it in the last few days right around Australia. The Herald Sun editorialised it, as did the Australian. Even the Canberra Times—hardly a Liberal rag and indeed often accused of being a fellow traveller, perhaps, with my comrades opposite in the chamber and indeed of barracking for the Stanhope government—noted that it was a monumental waste of money. It is probably useful to read out the Canberra Times editorial of last Tuesday, 6 March 2007, because it does sum up a number of the concerns in relation to this issue. It stated:
When the ACT Government discussed a cabinet proposal last year to erect a statue in Civic Square to honour the former Whitlam government minister Al Grassby’s contribution to Australian multiculturalism, it must have seemed like a good idea.
The idea belonged to Multicultural Affairs Minister John Hargreaves, who later announced that sculptor Peter Latona had been commissioned, at a cost to taxpayers of some $72,000, to portray Grassby in life-size bronze, complete with trademark multicoloured tie.
But despite Grassby’s claims to be the “father” of Australian multiculturalism, the Government—and Hargreaves in particular—has had to weather a stream of complaints about the decision to memorialise him, with many condemning the extravagant expense at a time when the Government is busy closing schools and libraries and cutting back on other services. Others have disputed Grassby’s contribution to multiculturalism and questioned the wisdom of honouring a politician once accused of criminal defamation for implicating the family of drugs campaigner Donald Mackay in his disappearance and death.
A former federal minister for immigration, and later commissioner for community relations, Grassby remains a polarising political figure—not least because he was a high-profile member of the most controversial federal government in Australian history. It is true that Grassby was a passionate and vocal advocate for the rights and recognition of Australia’s immigrant population, even if he rather too eagerly accepted the mantle of “father of multiculturalism” when there was evidence that other individuals were equally deserving of the title—perhaps more so. The term itself was one borrowed by Grassby from Canada. And if Grassby was skilful in promoting multicultural values, it was Malcolm Fraser who implemented them as government policy and perhaps has greater claims to their paternity.
Grassby’s radical ideas as immigration minister (including a proposal that Australia accept more immigrants from non-English-speaking countries), and his outspokenness were deeply unpopular amongst conservative voters fearful at the pace of ethnic change, and he lost his seat of Riverina in the 1974 election.
Grassby settled in Canberra after his political career ended, becoming something of an elder statesman of multiculturalism. He was ultimately cleared of charges that he had tried to smear the Mackay family, and by his death in April 2005, was honoured with a state funeral. Yet despite his achievements, and his Canberra connections, his choice as an emblem of multiculturalism in Canberra was always going to grate with some people. Until now, the Government has ignored the complaints, but it was forced on the defensive at the weekend when
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .