Calling him a deeply committed white supremacist might be a little of an exaggeration.

If he was a committed white supremacist then the goal with refugees and immigrants would be don’t let em in/kill them all, however I’ve made a handy little plot of all Permanent additions over his entire prime ministerial carrier.

This is by every country blue one at the top is the total doesn’t look like white supremacy to me (the 2 with hard drop-offs 2001-2002 are both a result of the kiwis). 1

Don’t know what he said about Asians but I’ve heard one in three Chinese at university is a spy either by choice or coercion.

The genocide debate I believe was because he doesn’t see the stolen generation as genocide its a definition issue and by that logic and the definition of a genocide below it doesn’t technically count (sounds like a greasy politician weaseling his way out of a difficult situation by technicality). 2

genocide /jĕn′ə-sīd″/ noun

The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.
"the Nazi genocide of Jews left few in Germany or Poland after World War II"
Similar: race murder racial extermination The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity. 

However the united nations includes this line: forcibly transferring children out of the group. So long answer is it depends on what definition your using.

By the definition he is technically correct.

None of this is in any way defending him or even saying that he isn’t a white supremacist just though that your representation or more likely the headlines from what the guardian said his legacy was is a little misleading.

Also who are you to say that his beliefs haven’t changed since when he was in office I would like to think that all people are developing and improving their own ideas throughout the entirety of their lives.