To carry out such large-scale anti-democratic treachery against the Australian people, the politicians of the major parties entered into what has been called a "conspiracy of silence".

Professor McAllister, of the Australian Defence Force Academy, confirms that the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party maintained a "conspiracy of silence".

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.[38]

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.[39]

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.[40]

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.[41]

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.

It was not the case that every graduate supported growth and that every early school-leaver opposed it. Surveys and opinion polls show that the trends were there, but that they were not all-embracing. Nevertheless, in the late 1970s and early 1980s Australian intellectuals offered no serious criticism of growth. Most of them, of course, had other things to do, and their work and their personal interests did not bring them into contact with the question. And some sincerely believed that immigration was necessary. But why were there no questions from the rest? Other policies, on unemployment, privatization, deregulation, housing, welfare spending, land rights, private schools, or tertiary fees attracted their full share of attention and debate. Why was immigration shunned?

During the 1970s a particular ideological climate grew up around the topic and attitudes to it came to acquire a special significance in intellectual circles. And for a series of historical reasons, the question moved from being a legitimate topic of discussion and disagreement to become not a topic but a symbol, a marker of intellectual status and identity. If a person's work brought them close to the subject it could be more important to be ideologically correct than to ask difficult questions. The climate was such that these questions might simply not emerge, but they did it could also become clear that the personal costs of pursuing them might be too high to pay. Potential critics stuck to the kinds of questions about immigration that were approved by their peers or avoided them altogether. Many ideas are difficult to challenge but the taboos surrounding immigration have been especially strong and, as Geoffrey Blainey's experience demonstrated in 1984, the sanctions for those who break them can be severe.[42]

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.

It is true that many of these people were driven by good intentions. It was feared that the hostility which exists in every society of racial diversity, but was particularly claimed to exist in Australia, would overflow if not contained. Also there was a large degree of middle class guilt over the White Australia policy and a belief that our future lay in Asia.

We were part of Asia, or so we were told ad nauseam. It was madness to upset Asian countries by questioning Asian immigration. It was also in extremely bad taste given our White Australia background. Therefore the immigration question was unexamined by the media, or, if examined, only in most superficial terms. The "racist" general public had to be attacked, and/or educated. The onus was on the host population to adapt and change to accommodate the newcomers, without question as to what affect these newcomers might be having on the existing society.

Then in 1984 a prominent figure, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who rightly speaking should have been seen as a member of the elite, one of the educators", was perverse enough to break the consensus. He publicly criticised the rate of Asian immigration and said that social problems would result if it continued. He also strongly criticised the policy of multiculturalism and noted that during his time on the Australia Council he was directed by the government to give preference in funding to people of ethnic background. As the economist Stephen Rimmer notes in The Cost of Multiculturalism this "positive" discrimination aspect of multiculturalism has virtually become institutionalised throughout the public sector.

Professor Blainey was savagely attacked by the elites. He stood his ground. The public had a focus. A man of influence was articulating what was widely felt, but which had been suppressed.[43]

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.[44]