COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
9PEECH 14 SEP 19J67ZBY
Le?~
The Rt Hon. HAROLD HOLT, M. P.,
09
APPROPRIATION BIll ( No. 1) 1967-68
SECOND READING
( BUDGET ' DEBATE)
rFrom t& e ' Parliamentary Debates', 5 September 1967]
Mr HAROLD' HOLT ( Higgins-Prime
Minister) [ 8.* 27)-The honourable member
for Bendigo ( Mr Beaton) is an amiable,
pleasant-mannered fellow, and he has
done his best tonight to lash himself into
a fury through the written script that he
has just given us. But I do give him full
marks for brazen effrontery because in the
earlier part of his address he told us that
the members of his Party were in a
position to amend a budget if they chose
to' do so. The honourable member knows
that not one in ten of the parliamentary
meiiib~ rs of the Australian Labor Party
has any say in the formation of policies
which are adopted and which the members
of the, Opposition are required to pursue,
like dumb, driven cattle, in this Parliament.
I would like to spend some time on
some of the extravagant things that the
hohourabli member said, but my own time
is* limited tonight. I hope that in the course
of what I have to' say I will cover several
of the matters to which the honourable
mirml~ er has directed* attention. I would like
1253/ 67 to deal particularly with some of his
references to social services and matters of
that kind.
Let me start by saying something about
those who are the spokesmen for this
regimented band who sit opposite us. First,
to do him the honour that is due to his
position of Federal President of the Australian
Labor Party, I quote Senator Keeffe.
It is only because he holds that office that
I think it desirable or appropriate to refer
to his statements, but when he happens to
head the body which decides the policies
which the elected representatives of the
people on the Opposition side of the House
have to follow he is entitled at least to
this nominal recognition. Long before my
colleague presented his Budget Senator
Keeffe said, as reported in the Melbourne
' Age' on 1st August: ' The Australian
economy is like a worn out motor vehicle.
The Government has patched it up here
and there but basically the economic
machine is no longer roadworthy'. I merely
ask honourable members to note those
remarks and bear in mind that they come
from the head of the supreme policy
making body of the Labor Party. I then
ask honourable members to dismiss the
remarks from their minds as being completely
without entitlement to the regard
of this place, certainly as they apply to
the state of Australia as we know it at the
present time. But, of course, the Leader
of the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam) had his
own comment to make. He professed to
find in the Budget no sense of purpose
or direction, no guide lines for national.
growth and no evidence that the Government
is prepared to take initiatives and
accept responsibilities in order to achieve
that growth. He asserted that the Government
is neglecting national development,
social services and the needs of the States.
Let us look at a few facts. It is not easy,
of course, to go back and compare what
a Labor government in office has done. It
is not easy to find from the professions of
policy what a Labor government would do.
If we look at Labor's printed platform we
see in its modern form a picture on the
front cover of the man of destiny. The old
car has been given a new coat of duco, but
the works are the same if we bother to
examine it. But even if we examine this
document we will find there is a gloss or
an interpretation of policy provided to suit
the audiences of the day-something which
differs very much from the precise statement
appearing in the printed document. So I
have to go back a long-way, but there have
been in this country, so far as national
politics are concerned, periods when a
Labor government has been in office, but on
those occasions the people of Australia have
quickly had cause to regret that Labor was
in power. And when the people have put
the Labor government out they have kept it
out long enough for another generation to
come along which has forgotten the kind of
government that existed earlier. So if I
want to show what a Labor government
would have done in circumstances corresponding
to those which exist now I must
go back far into the past.
Frankly, we on this side are getting a
little fed up with the humbug from honourable
gentlemen opposite who claim that they
have some monopoly of concern for the
less privileged sections of the community, who claim that only they have concern for
the pensioner, the widow, the children or
the repatriated soldier. They can make these
sweeping generalisations and these offensive
sneers, but what counts with the people are
the facts, and I have the facts. The last
Budget brought down by a Labor government
was in 1949-50. That Budget provided
a total of $ 185.6m for national welfare in
Australia. In this Budget we have provided
a total for national welfare of $ 1,071m. We
may talk about changes in the value of
money and population growth, but we still
, cannot avoid the proper conclusion that
there has been a very substantial improvement
in the real benefits conferred on those
people who are beneficiaries under the
National Welfare Fund.
We have just been chided about our
health scheme. What sort of health scheme
existed when Labor was in office? There
was a hospital benefits scheme of a sort. In
1949-50 Labor spent $ 610,000 on pharmaceutical
benefits. This year we are providing
in the Budget $ 75.2m for pharmaceutical
benefits. Under the last Labor Government
there was no medical benefits scheme. This
year we are spending in this field $ 45.8m.
Honourable members opposite weep their
crocodile tears about the pensioners. What
about the provision of pharmaceutical
benefits for pensioners? Not a cracker was
spent in this direction when Labor was last
in office, but this year we will spend
$ 38.1m on pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners.
Under Labor there was no medical
services scheme for pensioners. This year
in this area we have provided $ 16.5m.
I could talk about the aged persons
homes scheme, which is an innovation of
this Government. I could talk about the
liberalisation of the means test under this
Government. I could talk about the
improved position of the single pensioner,
whether man or woman, widowed or unmarried,
under this Government. All these
facets go to make up the whole: Labor in
1949-50 provided $ 185.6m for national
welfare, whereas we in this Budget have
provided $ 1,071m. We have been able to
do this because under our leadership the
economy has expanded and thrived. From
it, without wrecking initiative or preventing
people' from getting on with the job, we
have been able to provide an increasing
amount for the pensioners of this country.
There is another practical test of the
Government's concern for national welfare
and that is the proportion of the Budget
devoted to social welfare. It must be borne
in mind that compared with 1949-50, we
have had to more than double the proportion
of the Budget devoted to defence. In 1949-
only 8.3% of the Budget was earmarked
for defence. That was the last Budget
presented by a Labor government. This
year's Budget provides 17.25% of total expenditure
for defence. But despite the
claims on us of defence, development, international
aid and education, in this Budget
we have provided 20.55% of total expenditure
for social welfare. This compares
with a figure of 18.7% provided for social
welfare when Labor was last in office. I
referred to our commitment in the field
of education. Relatively speaking, the
allocation for education in the last Labor
Budget was negligible. I concede immediately
that the Labor Government's last
Budget was very much smaller than today's
Budget for a variety of reasons.
But today we are making a larger percentage
of the total Budget available for
social welfare, and it is an infinitely larger
budget because we have been able to promote
the growth of the country enormously.
As the Treasurer ( Mr McMahon) has
pointed out, over the last 5 years we have
averaged, in terms of constant prices, an
increase of 5f% in our gross national product.
This figure has not been exceeded in
that period by any industrialised country
with the exception of Japan. I remind
honourable members that in the period to
which I have referred we experienced a
dreadful drought year during which the
increase in our gross national product was
of the order of only And still honourable
gentlemen opposite sneer at us and
talk about a worn out motor. Whom do
they think they are talking to? Do they
think they are addressing the fully employed
people of this country who know that no
other country has succeeded in maintaining
a level of employment so consistently
high as has this Government since it came
to office in 1949? Who has devoted such a
large proportion of the Budget to social welfare?
Who has been able to provide the
best defence set-up in the history of Australia
apart from a period of all out war?
The people are not fools. They cannot be misled by such specious nonsense as comes
from honourable gentlemen opposite.
I do not want to devote all of my time
tonight to these matters. The Leader of the
Opposition has found the Budget unsatisfactory.
He cannot find it extravagant and
unrealistic as regards promises because of
what was put to us from his side at the
last elections. He will not find in the Budget
the kind of bureaucratic plan that
gladdens his heart. He will not find a
detailed blueprint to predetermine the future
pattern of growth and structure of an
economy which can point to the kind of
record I have indicated. This Government
does not go in for that kind of thing. What
is to be found is a record of achievement
which most countries and most objective
observers applaud. He will find a continuation
of the ' sound and responsible policies
which have made our achievements possible
and which offer the best prospects of
further rapid progress in the future. He
acknowledges-we accept his acknowledgment-
that there is a fundamental difference
between the approach of this
Government and the parties that support
it towards the development of the nation
and the approach of the Labor Party. He
says that the Budget is highly doctrinaire,
expressing the old blind faith in the natural
superiority of private enterprise over public
endeavour. It is not the Government that
is doctrinaire in its approach. This is
plainly shown by our record. In the
Government's view the public sector and
the private sector each have essential and
complementary roles to play in national
growth. At times circumstances will call for
a faster expansion of public sector activities
than private sector activities and at other
times the converse will be appropriate.
Over the past few years circumstances have
made it necessary to give greater emphasis
to the public sector. The Government has
done this. Between 1962-63 and 1966-67
public sector spending as a proportion of
total spending increased from 19% to 21%.
In the past 2 years 44% of the increase in
employment has gone to the public sector.
But now, as my colleague the Treasurer
pointed out so convincingly, there is a need
to ensure that the private sector and particularly
private developmental activity is
given scope for greater growth.
The Leader of the Opposition's speech
was directed almost wholly to decrying what
the Government has done and is doing,
and on this I have mentioned some of the
important facts. Defence is another element.
As our present defence build up began 5
years ago, we might well review briefly
what we have achieved in the economy during
this period, despite the diversion of
a very large amount of resources to
defence. The facts about the increases in
defence expenditure are well known and I
need not repeat them beyond observing
that the provision we are making for
defence this year is nearly $ 700m or 160%
greater than in 1962-63-5 years ago. What
has happened in other directions? Notwithstanding
this rapid build up in the defence
effort, the economy has kept growing at
a good rate and on sound lines and the
high rate of investment, both by the public
sector and the private sector, has been sustained.
Only one country, Japan, retains
more of its gross national income for capital
investment purposes than does Australia.
Exports have been rising strongly and our
external financial position has been kept
sound. Considerable improvements have
been made, as I pointed out, in social and
welfare services, and assistance to the States
has also been rising rapidly. I do not need
to go into all the figures because I have
a more important task tonight, and that is
to examine the alternatives which would
be presented by a government from the
other side of the House. Our aim is balanced
economic growth. We have achieved that
to an unparalleled degree in the last 5 years.
The Leader of the Opposition said that
the economy was barely rolling and had
been in a downswing in the past 2 years;
but he did not quote any figures on the
growth of the economy to support his
assertion. He did not because he could not.
I have already indicated to the House the
extent to which we have sustained the
growth in our national product over these
years in a more even way, despite a
drought, than almost any other country.
Mr Webb-Come on. Liven it up.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lucock)
-Order! The honourable member for
Stirling will cease interjecting.
Mr Webb-I am trying to get the right
honourable gentleman moving. Mr HAROLD HOLT-I will get moving
all right. I am coming to the honourable
member for Stirling right now. I hope to
remind him where he stands. Honourable
members opposite sometimes chide the
Government on high prices. When we came
into office, despite all the controls that the
doctrinaire Labor leaders had been applying,
inflation was running at the rate of
just under 10% per annum.
Mr Duthie-That is an invention.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-I shall give the
honourable gentleman the precise statistics.
I shall read a comment that a well respected
Labor authority, Professor Arndt, made in
the Chifley Memorial Lecture in 1956. He
said: S. it is high time Labor took the problem of
inflation as seriously as it has always taken the
problem of deflation and unemployment
Labor's record on this problem in its years of
Opposition has been lamentable
And it has remained lamentable over the
years that have elapsed since then. What is
the policy of the Opposition? It is not easily
ascertained because Labor has not been in
office for many years. The Labor Parry has
a document which purports to contain the
official platform and programme of the
Party but whenever members of the Party
are asked to explain it they give a different
interpretation. They were pinned down on
the subject of Vietnam in quite precise terms
the other day and decided on a policy of
troops out unless the United States accepts
cohditions which the Opposition knows to
be entirely unacceptable to that country.
The honourable member for Melbourne ( Mr
Calwell) claimed this decision to be a vindication
of his policy and the honourable
member for Yarra ( Dr J. F. Cairns) said it
was something that justified his position.
The decision was described by Mr Brown,
the State President of the Labor Party in
Victoria, as a ' troops out unless' policy. So
that is where the Opposition stands on that
issue. But where does it stand on its Socialist
pledge because I am dealing now with economic
issues and if Labor is the alternative
government the country is entitled to know
its economic policy. I understand the Leader
of the Opposition is unavoidably absent
tonight. I regret that because I would have
liked to say this to his face and I expect
to do so as time goes on. I will quote from
an article that he wrote. I do not think he
will challenge its accuracy. This article was
published in the ' Australian' of 18th February
1967, after the honourable gentleman
had been appointed Leader of the Opposition.
The article is headed ' Labor and the
Future'. I would happily incorporate the
entire article in Hansard should anyone so
desire. In the course of the article the
Leader of the Opposition said:
There never was an age when socialism was so
nearly inevitable; there never was a country where
it was so necessary.
I ask the House to dwell on those two
sentences because there will be a lot of
receding from them at a later point. I will
repeat the passage:
There never was an age when socialism was so
nearly inevitable; there never was a country where
it was so necessary.
I remember the former Leader of the
Opposition, the honourable member for
Melbourne, saying publicly that he wanted
to change the face of Australia and the
present leader is reported to have said-
I think in a Chifley Memorial Addressthat
the intention of the Labor Party was
not simply to redistribute income but to remould
Australia. I do not know how many
Australians want the face of the country
changed or how many want the country remoulded.
The country is doing pretty well.
It has the high standard of progress that I
have mentioned, it has a happy people, and
it is increasing its standing in the eyes of the
rest of the world. Nobody who votes for
honourable gentlemen opposite in a desire
to remove this Government will be able to
say to us afterwards, ' We didn't know it
was loaded', because the Opposition has
shown that it is loaded. Anyone who cares
to study what the Leader of the Opposition
has been consistentlysaying over the years
will realise that it is in the tone of the
sentences I have quoted. In the same speech,
the honourable gentleman. continued:
Australia's danger is that it may acquire a sort
of ' socialism' in a fit of absence of mind, under
the uncomprehending glare of a Government whose
doctrinaire objections to what is happening become
more obsessive as they grow more irrelevant.
As units in the economy grow larger and become
more international and as society becomes more
technological and urban, so socialism becomes
more relevant and urgent. The forces which man
is unleashing in the world must be the subject of
public and not exclusively private decision and
control. Our social and political advance-the degree to
which the people, through their elected representatives,
control and fashion their own future-is
badly lagging behind scientific and technological
change. Democratic socialism is a philosophy about the
value of man.
I say Liberalism is a philosophy about the
value of man-the freedom, the opportunity,
the incentive, that can be given to
man. There is a fundamental cleavage
between the viewpoint of those who sit in
support of the Government-we cannot get
them all on this side of the House, but I
embrace those who support the Government
on these matters-and those who
support the Socialist doctrines opposite.
Public ownership and public control of the
economy are more than ever central to a
Labor programme for government. The
members of the Labor Party sometimes
plead the limitations of the Constitution.
But the Leader of the Opposition does not.
In the same article, he says:
The limitations of the Constitution are real.
They are not absolute. I have no sympathy with
an attitude which finds in the presumed limitations
of the Constitution an excuse for avoiding
the search for constructive, relevant and realistic
methods of applying our policy and attaining our
objectives. The honourable gentleman has indicated
where he stands. He will gloss it over, he
will blur it, he will fog it up, he will make
it impossible of discernment to a critical
audience. But there it is in plain black and
white. If that is not what the Opposition
stands for, what does it stand for? I would
like to have quoted from what the shadow
Treasurer said. He said that the Budget is
an engine for the redistribution of the
wealth of the community, which is only a
polite way of saying: We are going to take
from him and give to him or to her. Up
to a point, that is so. Up to a point, that
is what we do. I do not know any free
country in the world where what is produced
by the community is more fairly
and evenly distributed amongst the community
than it is in Australia. If anyone
opposite can point to a country where it
is, then let him point to it. What honourable
members opposite would do would be
to kill the productive forces of the community.
We realise the good sense of keeping
incentive alive, of encouraging people
with a willingness to take risks to put their
effort into the job, to hazard their savings
in order to do something better for themselves.
We realise the importance of encouraging
capital, not just of domestic
capital, although 90% of our own investment
in Australia comes from our own resources,
but the capital of others who come here
and take the risks with us. Honourable
members opposite chide us about northern
development. I wonder whether they know
that at this moment projects are going on
in the north of Australia to the value of
S2,000m. Do they know that the rate of
population growth in the north of Australia
has been greater than in the south of Australia
over the last significant period of
years-I think it is the last 5 years-for
which I have statistics? They chide us that
there is not this development going on and
they say that private investment will not
undertake it. But this is what is being done,
and it is being done because we have
created the kind of climate in which people
who are prepared to take risks feel tnat
there will be a reward-a return for their
risks. We are told there is no Australian
equity in this sort of investment. Why,
from every $ 100 of profit we take $ 42.50
in tax. If any of the remainder apart from
what is ploughed back into further development
in the business is remitted overseas,
then we take 15%, or 30% o, according to
the relevant rate of tax, of what is remitted.
So we have. a very real practical potential
interest in the profitability of investment in
Australia. I repeat that the investment made
by our own people represents from 85%
to 90% of the total of the investment which
others from overseas are prepared to make.
It is because of that that we have had the
enormous growth in our national income
which has not merely enabled us to more
than double the defence provision of this
country over the last 5 years but which
has enabled us to go on steadily improving
the provision for development, the provision
-for social welfare and the provision for
international aid.
I feel that my colleague the Treasurer
is to be congratulated on bringing down a
Budget which has enjoyed a more favour-,
able national reception than any Budget
that I can recall in my public lifetime. He
has done that with a full consciousness that he is keeping alive the spirit of enterprise,
that he is giving encouragement to
incentive, and that he is building up a
national income from which our standards
are improved and from which our defence
effort can be strengthened and because of
which confidence in the future of Aus
tralia will be strongly sustained.
When the people of Australia know
these things, when they consider in far
more detail than I can give tonight, but
in the kind of detail which I hope honourable
members on this side of the House
will be giving in the period ahead, what
alternative is offered in terms of policy
by honourable gentlemen opposite, then I
do not think they will have any doubt as
to where they should turn. I can recall a
very respected Labor leader in this House
telling us years ago of Labor's attitude to
employment. We have sustained full
employment. I refer to the late Mr Chifley.
Mlr Curtin-The Prime Minister called
him a Communist.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-I have never
called him a Communist in my life, but I
know people in the honourable member's
Party who helped to bring him to an untimely
end. The honourable member should
not stir up these old embers. I have
been in this place a long time and I know
the factors which operated on some former
Labour leaders. The late Mr Chifley,
dedicated as he was to full employment,
made it clear that Labor's view on full
employment was not the voluntary movement
of people from job to job. He pointed
out that there might have to be transfers
of whole communities. I can remember his
saying something to this effect-and
honourable members opposite will not
challenge it: ' You need not think you are
going to sleep in the same bed every night
or look at the same Town Hall clock. You
will go where a job is provided for you.'
We have sustained full employment in this
country on a voluntary basis. We have
enabled people to take the jobs of their
own choosing and -the economic climate
has been so right that not only have they
had the jobs but the great mass of new
settlers who have come to us have been
quickly placed in employment and added
to our strength.
BY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR~, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA, A. C. T,