there has been an implicit pact between the main parties to implement broad policies on immigration they know are not generally endorsed by the electorate... This has been achieved by keeping the subject off the political agenda.
Malcolm Fraser, former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, admitted this agreement between the Multiculturalist parties of the so-called "left" and "right".
racial issues were off-limits in the political arena.
Bob Hawke, when he was the Labor Prime Minister of Australia, also admitted this treacherous political collusion against the Australian people.
We will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation.
That the media has willingly participated in this "conspiracy of silence" has outlined by John Bennett (spokesman of the Australian Civil Liberties Union).
The media has censored arguments for a return to a predominantly European immigration policy and has either ignored or berated people seeking to express support for the views of Professor Geoffrey Blainey who has said the current level of Asian immigration is too high. Reports indicating that a majority of immigrants are now from Asia are given little prominence. The failure of multi-racial and multi-cultural societies overseas is generally downplayed. People who call for a reduction in Asian immigration are subjected to character assassination and are wilfully described as inciting racial hatred while the racist immigration policies of Asian countries such as Japan, China, Malaysia and Indonesia are accepted as normal.
Australian governments have also suppressed research into immigration-related matters when such research doesn't produce the results that are agreeable to the government “line” on immigration. As well as the anti-immigration views being suppressed from above, such views were also suppressed by a social climate of fear that had been created within Australia's intellectual elite. Only a few brave souls dared to speak out against the Multiculturalist stance on immigration. In 1984, Professor Geoffrey Blainey publicly questioned the immigration status quo and was subsequently attacked without let-up in the nation's media, was vilified by the pro-immigration academia, and suffered violent tactics from organised groups of Multiculturalist thugs. Katharine Betts, in Ideology and Immigration, described the social climate that had developed around the issue of immigration.
A number of intellectuals, as a consequence of the kind of work they do, have privileged access to the means of communication. In many cases the opinion that is actually heard is either that of members of the national elite or it is the opinion of intellectuals. Intellectuals can form an 'attentive public', actively engaged in political debates and controversies and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the kinds of opinions voiced at seminars and conferences, in media interviews, and in 'letters to the editor' will be taken as the working equivalent of 'public opinion'. But there is no necessary reason why educated and articulate opinion should mirror public opinion in general and by the late 1970s the educated and the less educated were at odds on the question of immigration. The general opinion of people with tertiary qualifications was quite unlike the general opinion of less educated people.
Graeme Campbell and Mark Uhlmann, in Australia Betrayed, noted the public unrest against the Multiculturalist politicians who push their ideology onto Australia, despite the will of the Australian people.
There had been simmerings of discontent among the general public at the rate of increase in Asian immigration from the time of the Fraser Government. It was known by the "elites" that the general public was not happy with both the composition of the immigration intake and the policy of multiculturalism, but the general public was easy to handle as long as it had no focus and was not organised. All the elites, including crucially the great bulk of the media, were in agreement that these two issues should not be publicly discussed; or, if discussed, in such a way as to discredit those who questioned them.
Geoffrey Blainey (former Professor of History at Melbourne University) has noted the unhealthy effects of Multiculturalism upon Australia's democracy.
Democracy in Australia is not quite as healthy as it should be. There is a strong view, reinforced by a section of the media based in Canberra, that certain topics are too dangerous to be handed to the people for decision at election time. Immigration is one topic ... We hear, again and again, that the Australian people themselves cannot be trusted to vote on immigration ... Aboriginal affairs is another topic not to be trusted to the people. The press joined with Mr Keating in wiping it from the agenda at the 1993 Federal election. And of course the Native Title Bill was deliberately introduced to Parliament without any chance of members of the public seeing that Bill, and a strong attempt was made to push it through as quickly as possible ... It will remain a smoldering topic in Australia for many years to come.