Fraser Anning: text of an interview with CNBC

 CNBC: Does Mr Anning’s speech have any broader significance for Australian politics?
DK: It is part of a debate being held by some politicians and individuals at the margins of Australian political thinking and, as with all such calls for bigotry, tries to capitalise on a sense of racial division among some of the most marginal citizens.

CNBC: Is it perhaps representative of increasing conservatism Down Under?
DK: No, it reflects a long-standing strain of racism that pervades a small corner of Australian society, as it appears to do in most societies. That the Australian Prime Minister and the Opposition leader both condemned Anning’s speech in Parliament reflects a bipartisan support for Australia’s multicultural policy of inclusion and equality.

CNBC: Do you think conservative politicians like Mr. Anning have been emboldened by Trump to publicly support such controversial policies?
DK: Anning is not a ‘conservative’ in any traditional sense and more a radical bigot. There is a move in Western politics more widely to resort to extremes, of which US President Trump is an unfortunate example. We have also seen it in the UK with Brexit, and the rise of the Right in a number of European countries. Australia has long had a small if vocal racist minority and, over the past decade, a small number of them have managed to gain a place in Australia’s Senate, based on its sometimes skewed system of allocating preferences. Anning himself only received 18 first preference votes, and it is unlikely he will survive past the Senate half term elections due next year. However, by creating a lot of noise about himself, he may possibly attract a bit more attention and boost his vote, if probably by not enough to be returned as a Senator.

CNBC: Any broader insights about Mr. Anning’s views and how it relates to global or Australian developments would be much appreciated.
DK: As noted, there is a growing polarisation in Western politics, reflecting a number of factors including the negative impacts of economic globalisation, the rise of the ‘precariat’ (workers with precarious or insufficient employment), the growing gap between rich and poor, sometimes sensationalised and decontextualised media reports about global ‘threats’ such as jihadi Islamism and so on.

Some less educated, more vulnerable people see their own circumstances becoming worse, perceive a ‘threat’ and see a number of recent immigrants who are in some respects visually different to themselves and react negatively, especially when they tend to cluster in particular geographic areas . This is not uncommon for new arrivals in an unfamiliar country, to seek that which they know, and has been the common experience of Australia post-WWII migration from Europe, especially southern Europe, the Middle-East, S-E Asia, China, India and, more recently, refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and sub-Saharan Africa.

But Australia is now and always has been a migrant country and has a policy of multiculturalism for the past four decades. As with all change, there will be those who are more and less comfortable with it. But, interestingly, those who are least comfortable are also those who have the least direct experience of it. That is to say, their fear is overwhelmingly based on ignorance or, in the case of Anning, ignorance combined with political opportunism.