This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

The multifunction polis was portrayed as a cross between The Jetsons, Blade Runner and a nuclear-powered paradise, channelling foreign investment and technology into the Australian economy.



It was not a movie, or a cartoon, but a serious joint project, conceived by the Japanese government and taken up enthusiastically by Bob Hawke’s industry minister, John Button, in 1988.

The MFP was billed as a “futuristic” city which was to combine the best technology, energy, health, education and lifestyle in a contained environment, but everyone had a different idea of how it might turn out.

The idea, according to 1989 cabinet documents released by the National Archives, was consistent with the Hawke government’s policy foundations to restructure Australian industry and promote international investment.

The problem was no one knew exactly what the thing was, including government departments. That made it very hard to sell.

The vague principle was that the MFP would combine Australia’s technological strengths and Japan’s interest in future lifestyles, in a project mostly funded by private investors in Japan, with minimal cash from the Australian government. In the end, it is estimated the government chipped in $150m on a project that ultimately went nowhere.

The cabinet was told three concepts were assessed as having “considerable appeal”: a “biosphere” to solve ecological problems; a “technopolis” to develop innovative technology; and a “renaissance polis” for international research on arts and culture. Why not combine all three, said the consultant, to attract more investment?

Cabinet documents from 1989 show the minister asked his colleagues to approve a further $1m from within his existing budget to keep the feasibility study rolling. There were consultants to feed, not to mention working committees and thinktanks and pilot concepts and steering committees.

But government departments were lukewarm at best. It was a time when increasing Japanese investment, particularly on the Gold Coast, was causing a low-level racial rumble so familiar in Australian politics.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Fast Forward used a Play School setting to poke fun at the scheme

In the ensuing debate, Bruce Ruxton of the Returned and Services League called the MFP “Jap city”. The comedy show Fast Forward lampooned the idea in similar terms at a time when you could still pull a “slant-eyed” face on national television and get away with it.

Federal departments raised concerns, particularly about the communication of the MFP concept. Treasury called the proposal “vague” and the public awareness campaign “premature”.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade wanted the project’s name changed and a “more practical orientation”.

“We believe, nevertheless, that the proposals contained in the concept paper need a more practical orientation before a communications strategy could be usefully developed to publicise the project and promote positive public awareness,” Dfat’s submission said.

“At the same time Dfat believes that terms such as ‘biosphere’, ‘technopolis’ and ‘renaissance’ are not useful terms to use in gaining community acceptance and participation.”

The department of primary industries commented: “It is perhaps disappointing that there is still no clear idea at this stage as to what intrinsic values or benefits are inherent in an MFP that are not already available through more normal international consortium approaches at a commercial level.”

By 1990, Andrew Robb – who is now the trade minister and completed the Japan, China and Korea free trade agreements this year – encouraged the Liberal opposition leader, Andrew Peacock, to change policy midway through an election campaign. As a result, Peacock renounced the MFP.

“We reject the notion of any development which would establish an enclave,” his manifesto said.

Paul Kelly wrote in his book The End of Certainty that Robb thought the MFP proposal was nonsense. Hawke was horrified at Peacock’s stance, accusing him of trying to tap a vein among Australian voters.

Intriguingly, John Howard, who had raised fears about the rate of Asian immigration just two year earlier, and lost the leadership partly as a result, was more generous. “I don’t think we should bury the concept in a sea of hostility before we know anything about it,” Howard said.

The Coalition lost the election, but the Liberals’ election report said the MFP issue was a net gain for the Liberal leader.

Ultimately a site near Adelaide was chosen, but the MFP limped on to a slow and inelegant death, formally confirmed in 1998.