Malcolm Turnbull says words are ‘rejected by us all’ while Bill Shorten describes senator’s comments as ‘repugnant’

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

The crossbench senator Fraser Anning has been widely criticsed for his invoking of the White Australia policy and use of the term “final solution”, with Malcolm Turnbull, Labor, the Greens and even One Nation leader Pauline Hanson condemning his racially inflammatory first Senate speech.

Fraser Anning refuses to apologise for 'final solution' immigration reference – politics live Read more

Anning did a round of interviews on Wednesday morning claiming the use of the term “final solution” – used by the Nazi regime to describe a genocidal policy of exterminating Jewish people – was inadvertent but refused to apologise because he claimed the outrage was solely coming from political opponents.

Condemnation came from all sides of the political spectrum and motions in the House of Representatives and Senate backing Australia’s non-discriminatory immigration program were supported by the Coalition, the Greens and minor parties.

But while he was roundly condemned in Canberra, Anning’s running mate, Bob Katter, backed the senator. “His speech was absolutely magnificent. It is everything that this country should be doing,” Katter told reporters in Cairns.

At a doorstop on Wednesday, the prime minister condemned Anning’s remarks, saying Australians are defined not by race or religion but a “commitment to shared political values of freedom, of democracy and the rule of law”.

“And people from every corner of the earth, from every religion or of none, and every race, can connect, be inspired by, [and] be part of those values.

“That is Australia. So we reject, we condemn racism in any form, and the remarks by Senator Anning are justly condemned and rejected by us all.”

Play Video 1:55 Fraser Anning speech row: 'we must fight bigotry', says Tony Burke – video

Later in the lower house, Turnbull said the reference to a “final solution” on immigration was a “shocking insult” to the Jewish people.

Bill Shorten said that Anning’s speech was “racist”, “repugnant and disgraceful”.

He said it was not “political correctness to stand up for minorities” but rather “just good manners”. “The idea in this country that someone’s faith makes you a first- or second-class Australian is rubbish.”

The motions in both houses acknowledged the white Australia policy was dismantled with bipartisan support and committed that “race, faith or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly” be criteria for determining Australia’s immigration intake.

During the debate the One Nation leader Pauline Hanson disowned Anning, saying she was “appalled” by his comments, despite the fact he was elected on her Senate ticket and Hanson has previously said Australia is in danger of being “swamped by Muslims”.

Earlier on Wednesday the energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, labelled the comments “extremely ignorant” and “hurtful, divisive and unacceptable”.

“Fraser Anning should not only retract his comments last night but he should also immediately go and visit a Holocaust museum ... and hear first hand from survivors how raw the pain is and hear about and see the destruction and devastation caused by the Nazi killing machine,” he told Channel Nine.

Frydenberg said he was “deeply offended” by the remarks and called on Anning to apologise.



On Tuesday evening the citizenship and multicultural affairs minister, Alan Tudge, said Anning’s comments “do not reflect the views of the government nor the views of fair-minded Australians”.

Alan Tudge (@AlanTudgeMP) Fraser Anning’s comments on immigration do not reflect the views of the Government nor the views of fair minded Australians. We will always maintain a non-discriminatory immigration program.

Anning was unrepentant on Wednesday morning, telling Nine his intention was “not necessarily” to cause outrage but people are “entitled to be outraged if they want to be”.

The senator – who was elected as the replacement for One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts after his disqualification but abandoned the party to join Katter’s Australia party – said he “didn’t even think about” the historical connotations.

Anning claimed the speech had been taken “completely out of context” and his remarks had “nothing to do with” the Nazi party’s Final Solution.

“The fact is all I said was the final solution to the immigration problem is a vote of the Australian people,” he said. “I don’t regret anything ... I’m not going to apologise or regret anything I say.”

Criticism of Anning’s speech has not been limited to the use of the term “final solution”. Anning also invoked the White Australia policy, suggesting Australians may want “to return to the predominately European immigration policy of the pre-Whitlam consensus”. The White Australia policy, which restricted non-European immigration, ran from 1901 until it began to be dismantled in the late 1960s.

The Labor leader in the Senate, Penny Wong, said the speech did not reflect “the strong, proud multicultural country that we are”.

“It reflected a time that we have moved on from and it reflected division and prejudice,” she told reporters in Canberra.

Wong added it was “disappointing” that Turnbull has negotiated with Pauline Hanson, who called for a ban on immigration in 2016 and helped get Anning elected on her One Nation ticket.

She said the prime minister’s conduct amounted to “legitimising [Hanson] and those people who share those views by negotiating with her” and the Coalition giving preferences to One Nation.

Australia’s outgoing race discrimination commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, has recently declared that “race politics is back” in Australia.

He criticised Hanson for an incident in which she wore a burqa in parliament and various Turnbull government ministers for their rhetoric on African gangs and ethnic separatism in a fiery final speech before departing his post at the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Labor has called for a parliamentary racial code of ethics to help counter the rise of rightwing nationalism and the One Nation party.

The Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm called the response a “ridiculous overreaction” to a phrase that could have “multiple meanings”.

But he said: “There was plenty in the speech with which I disagreed. I don’t agree with him on banning Muslim immigration. I don’t agree on reinstating the White Australian policy.”