Purhaps our friend from Australia can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Liberal party of Australia (that's right, "liberal" in Australia means liberal economics, let corporation and business do whatever they please)of which Howard in PM used to subscribe to the "White Australia" policies of the past (and present).
The reason the Liberal (the capital L is extremely important) Party was created in 1944 was to allow more economic freedoms, basically meant to be a counter of the union created Labor party. There really wasn't a massive social divide, the Labor Party was old-school Catholic and the Liberals were usually anglican or presbyterian.
As time moved on however, the free-market Liberal Party also tended to attract social conservatives as the Labor Party in the late 60s and into the 70s moved socially left.
Then in the 1980s the Labor Party fell under the spell of Thatcherite economics.
John Howard USED to be a socially "small c" conservative and economic liberal. However he has become a social Conservative and economic reactionary.
Having said that there are many Liberals who are called wet libs, or are true liberals, they like economic and social freedom, but most rarely get heard or supress their real views to keep in step the mainstream of the party. John Howard did attempt in the 1987 election to develop a policy which would restrict Asian immigration (and people didn't go for it). I don't think the majority of Australians are racist, I think there is a sick undercurrent of it, largely from a certain degree of cultural isolation which comes from our geographic position.
FYI - This is a big story here, and the overwhelming current of policy opinion is firmly against Howard. Most feel he has the right to comment on a policy which does affect our troops (I didn't appreciate the mocking tone of one poster). I heard someone on the radio say "Why is Howard starting to get this moral absolutist tone like Bush... remember Johnnie, we don't like Bush".
