E M B A R G 0 NOT FOR RELEASE BY ANY MEDIA BEFORE
8.09 PM, WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER 1970
SENATEC A M P A I G N
OPENING SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
MR. JOHN GORTOi\ N
MALVERN TOWN HALL, MELBOURNE
Wednesday 4 November 1970
EMBARGO : NOT FOR RELEASE BY ANY MEDIA BEFORE
4 OEBR-97-
Tonight I want to talk to you about the coming Senate Campaign.
I shall report to you on our achievements in the last year.
I shall touch briefly on the further objectives we have in mind and I shall point
out the great differences between Labor and ourselves in defence, foreign
policy, and responsible non-inflationary internal government.
The result of a Senate Election does not usually affect Australia's
future. But it is possible that this election could result in Labor's gaining
a blocking half in the Senate that is 30 Senators.
If that happened, Labor would not have power to do anything
positive. But it would have the power to obstruct, frustrate, and delay all
the processes of government. It could refuse supply, or defeat a budget.
And I believe it would use that power, as it would use any power it could
gain, to damage Australia's Security, to destroy Australia's alliances, to
disrupt Australia's economy ard to affect Australia's future very greatly.
Nevertheless, important though it is, the election is not really an
occasion for us to advance a lengthy programme of new policies, or make
new specific promises. The occasion for that was one year ago, at the
General Election, when we put before you a programme, policies, and
promises for a three-year period. And you elected us.
I can report to you that in the one year since then we have carried
out most of the promises we said we would carry out over three years. I shall
not weary you with a detailed list in this short address. But we have brought
in a vastly improved health schemle. We have reduced the burden of direct
taxation in one year by the amount we promised to do in three years. We have
continued to protect and advance greater Australian ownership of our developing
resources. We have greatly increased spending on education and on new
initiatives in social services. And we have given the States a new financial
deal by greatly increasing the funds they require for their own responsibilities.
These are only a few of the year's achievements. The complete
list is much longer. For example, at the last election, we made 43
promises and already 3 1 have been carried out. I think that I can justly claim
" that which we promise, we perform". " While they talk, we act.
We have additional objectives. We shall attain them as we can
do so with financial responsibility. I shall refer to them later in this
speech. And they are important.
But even more import. ant is the harm which Labor would do to. our
security. Let me first discuss with you the question of Vietnam. Why I think
it was right, and in our interests to go there to help. Why I think it is right
and in our interests to remain there until the Vietnamese are organised enough,
and strong enough, to defend -themselves.
May I remind you how this WE began.
For a number of years after the Geneva Accords of 1934 the people
of North Vietnam lived under their communist government and the people of
South Vietnam lived under their non-communist government. The people in
both sections lived in relative peace. That peace could have continued.
B ut the Government of North Vietnam was prepared to wage war
rather than let tI~ e people of the Souti retain the right to choose their own
Government and way of Ife. And the people of the South were prepared to
acctept war rather than have their right of self-determination taken from them
rather than have an alien government imposed on them by force.
And so the war came.
It came at first through an uprising armed and directed by the North
and then through an invasion of the South by the North Vietnamese Regular Army.
I do not ask you to accept this on my statement alone, for the present Deputy
Leader of the Labor Party, Mr. Lance Barnard, has endorsed what I say.
In May 1967 after a visit to Vietnam he. reported publicly that there was a
large-scale invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnamese troops. " I am
satisfied", he said, " that this is more than just a guerilla war and I suppose
it can be compared with the earlier conflict in Korea".
So there was invasion. And the object of that invasion was to destroy
self-determination in South Vietnam; to take away the people' s right to
choose how and under what government they would live.
Again, I do not ask you to accept this on my statement alone. For in
his Evatt Memorial Lecture of 1966 the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr.
Whitlam, wrote:
" it is, however, quite clear that victory by the VIietcong and Hanoi
would destroy any hope of self determination in the South as it has
destroyed it in the North".
And this invasion was accompanied, as Mr. Whitlam has admitted, by
" Vietcong brutalities and cruelties in Vietnam". 3
Don't you think it was right to help fight that aggression? Wvere we
immoral to do so as we are now told or were the invaders immoral? Should
we follow the dictates of Mr. W* hitlam's present conscience and cease to resist
invasion, the imposition of communist dictatorship, and the brutalities
perpetrated, or should we continue to resist and finish that which we began.
Well, the invasion was resisted with the help of the Americans and
of ourselves and other countries9 It t is been resisted for six years. And
in that time the strength and purpose of South Vietnam has so grown that it is
now able to take over more of its own defence; it has so grown that the
Americans and ourselves have been able to reduce our troop numbers without
endangering the objectives we sought.
It is possible for us to make this reduction because we stayed and
fought when Labor was clamouring for us to withdraw. And because we stayed
and fought it is now possible for President Nixon to offer a cease fire, an end
to the killing, and negotiations designed to allow the South Vietnamese to
ehkct their own government from the candidates of any political party including
the communist party.
Who then is immoral? We, who offer an end to killing or they who
insist on continuing the killing to achieve military conquest and who refuse a
cease fire? What does that present conscience, of which Mr. Whitlam speaks
so much, suggest we should do? To continue to resist brutal and unprovoked
invasion? To help a small nation retain the right to govern itself? Or to
withdraw all our troops now as Mr. Whitlamn presently demands.
If we did that we would betpy the people of South Vietnam. We
would negate the heavy sacrifices already made. We would be recreant to
the hopes for future universal peace because future peace can only endure if
small nations are not threatened with invasion and conquest.
We would destroy the confidence of the other small countries in
Asia, and by doing that, we would increase the possibility of future danger to
Australia itself. We look forward to the day when, with South Vietnam able to guard
its own independence without help, we can withdraw all our troops, That day is
coming nearer as the military war is being won. But ui~ til it does arrive I suggest
that morality, conscience, and self interest all require that we should finish the
task we began. But Labor under Mr. Whitlamn would renege in Vietnam. / 4
Having done this -mand thereby increased the danger to other
Asian countries including Malaysia they would then withdraw from the Five
Power Arrangements designed to help Malaysia and Singapore and at the same
time they would drastically cut the strength of our own army by abolishing
National Service. We would be alone, with our alliances shattered, regarded as
accepting no responsibility to help mr-ntain peace in our region. And with
our own army halved.
That is what I meant by saying Labor would damage Australia's
security and destroy Australia's alliances.
And that is one reasn I ask you not to give them the chance to
do this damage.
RURAL INDUSTRIES Australia has a new problem new in scale to solve. That
problem is the plight of many of our rural industries.
Some have been hit hard by drought ( in many sections of the
Nation) particularly by the tragic drought in parts of Queensland.
This has drastic impact on many individuals but it will eventually
pass. It is not new. And we can take measures to help those who are hard
hit. In fact we have, during the past five years provided some $ 94
million for drought relief freight concessions, restocking loans, assistance
with shire rates and so on and we stand ready to support the States further
whenever the cost of approved drought relief measures is beyond their resources.
But the problem of selling our produce on world markets now and
in the future is far more serious. Many of our rural industries now find either
that the countries of the world do not wish to buy their produce, or: that they
will not pay enought for it, to provide a living to the producer.
We have had hard pressed rural industries before. But what is new
( about the present position) is that where rural industries were hard pressed
before so was every other section of industry. Now rural industries alone
are hard pressed while other industries, and other sections of the community,
are not. a 0
This does not come about through lack of help and support by
Governments to rural industry in Australia-
* We have increased the superphosphate bounty to $ 12 per
ton: We have extended taxation concessions-
We have introduced a drought bond scheme:
We have raised exemption levels in relation to estate duty:
We introduced devaluation compensation payments following
the devaijation of steriing at the end of 1967.... and to the
3) June i97.), payments made to rural industry totalled
million: In the last Budget we provided $ 30 million for payments to
woolgrowaers whose income from wool fell by more than 8
per cent between 1968/ 69 and 1969/ 70 and who received at
least 50 -er cert of their gross income from wool.
We have increased the funds available to the Term Loan and
Farm Development Loan Fund and made arrangements for
the e xei-r-. tion of primary producers in adverse financial
circumstances from the increase in the maximum overdraft
rate approved by the Reserve Bank in March 1970.
The Government has under consideration at this moment a
proposal for a stabilisation plan for certain exports of fresh
apples and pears.
All this we have already done.
The result of the squeeze on rural industry is not a matter
of concern to those industries alone. The country towns which depend on their
prosperity are hard hit. And because those on the land are buyers of cars,
machinery, chemicals, and a maltitude of consumer goods this recession will
be increasingly felt throujih the whcoile fabric of industry ' And commerce in
Australia. Further, because the salle of rural products earns over 50% 0
of our foreign exchange a decline in earn ings will severely affect our overseas
balances. This is a national, not a sectional problem.
The solution must lie not in a withdrawal of the kind of help which is
now given.
Rather does it lie in seeking new and different methods of assistapce.
Methods designed to ensure that the highest price which buyers are prepared to
pay is in fact paid. Methods designed to increase the efficiency of handling,
where possible, and reduce the costs of marketing.
Methods designed to help reduce the cost of production to the
individual, efficient, grower and not by means of subsidy.
An example of this approach is the Government' s action to help
wool growers to help combat the disistrous fall in wool prices.
There we have secured legislative authority to set up the Australian
Wool Commission. The function of this Commission is not to set a -high reserve price
which buyers will not pay, and which could result in huge stock piles of wool
and in manufacturers switching to synthetic fibres.
Its function is to operate a flexible reserve price, determined from
day to day, in order to ensure that if buyers are prepared to pay a certain price
they will in fact pay it and not be able to buy moire cheaply because of the
vagaries of the auction system.
Its function, too, is to regulate the flow of wool onto the market; to
encourage the adoption of technological aids to wool selling such as pre sale
objective measurement, ultimately selling by sample, and reduction in handling
costs thas ensuring the highest possible return to the grower without trying to
defy the market. My colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry has been working
energetically on this. He has already chosen, after consultation with me, the
members of the Commission. He will announce the names tomorrow.
We expect the Commission will hold its first meeting this week.
We hope and believe the Commission will be operating the flexible reserve scheme
within a few weeks.
This will help. But more is needed.
It would be a1a enormous help to many farmers and it would remove a
constant worry from their minds, if they could be assured when their
circumstances justified it of guaranteed long-term finance. If they had a loan
for a term of years, instead of short-term loans or overd~ rafts on call, they could
plan better for the future and would have a security they, now lack.
We therefore propose to discuss with the appropriate financial
institutions the setting up of a Finance Insurance Corporation to insure long-term
loans to rural producers and to act in much the same way as the Housing Finance
Insurance Corporation acts at present.
But I must emphasise that the key words in what I have said are" when
their circumstances justify it". This is not a proposal to advance long-term
credit to rural producers who may be in a hopeless financial position or who may
not be a good credit risk. / 7.
The Bureau of Agricultur al Economics has been examining this proposal
and has reported to the Minister for Primary Industry on it. We believe that it will
work, that it will be of assistance of a new kind, and that it will be in the national
interest. There is an additional problem. That of existing farm debt. In a number
of cases a load of debt is crried which is greater than the farmer or property can bear.
This will require a programme of debt and property readjustment. I do not mean by
this that we should adopt the slogan " get big or get out" because bigness is not of
itself any guarantee of eonomy or efficiep'y.
But I do mean that the harsh realities of the world will require a policy of
" oget to a stage where you can produce at a cost that meets the market prices or
accept a lower income or leave the industry.
And if this is so then it requires that the community should help in the
retraining and rehabilitation of those -who, for one reason or another, cannot meet this
criteria, and that the Commonwealth should work with the State to bring about that
structural readjustment. just as I asked you not to give Mr. Whitlam the chance to damage our
security and alleances so I ask you not to give him the chance to wreck our national
economy. HOUR WEEK I have been speaking of the rural industries and of what has been done, and
can be done, to assist them.
But one thing is clear. With their costs already high and their returns
already fallen they wiould be dealt a crippling blow if Australia introduced a
week. Under the Whitlam-Hawke partnerslip there is a real danger that this would
happen if they had the opportunity.
And this would not only hit rural industries.
Introduction of a thirty-five hour week must mean one of two things.
Either those who now work forty hours would work only 35 and the volume
of production would therefore drop, and the cost per unit of production would therefore
rise, Or those who now work forty hours for a given wage would work 35 hours for the
siame wage and an extra five hours at overtime rates. In which case the cost per unit
of production would therefore rise.
in either case the end result must be greatly increased costs. This would
hit all those on fixed incomes; all on superannuation, all living on the income from
investments, all pensioners.
It would raise the price of everything the housawife buys, and the
transport and other public facilities she uses.
It would place Australia at great disadvantage in trying to sell our products
on the competitive export market. It would raise the cost of building schools, hospitals,
roads, houses, and the other services the community needs.
It * would damage overseas confidence in Australia's future and impede the
inflow of capital to helpa in our needed development. And even though this damage
would have been done th worker himself would be no better off.
The most he could gain would he higher money wages which because of the
higher prices for everything he bought would not be higher real wages and would buy
no more. It Is hard to think of any action whicliwould more damage Australia and
Australians. Yet Mr. Hawke of the A. C. T. U. has announced that 1971 will be the year
of the ' 5 hour week. That is his stated aim. And Mr. Whitlam is bound, by the
platform constitution and rules of the Labor Party to do all he can to help Mr. Hawke.
For the platform, constitution and rules as adopted in August last year state " That
conference considers that an effective political campaign be undertaken, in conjunction
with the A. C. T. U. to achieve our objective of a 35 hour week.
Typically, Mr. Whitlam is now evading all questions on the marter. But
he is bound to support Mr. Hawke by " an effective political campaign". I belileve that
if he had the opportunity he would.
He could do so by permitting statutory bodies over whom the C3overnment
had control to take the lead in introducing the shorter week. He could do so by exerting
political pressure on those who determine the hours orl public servants.
Above all he could do so, should a case be put to the Arbitration Court,
by intervening and urging the Court to do what he is bound to do.
Well, we will not. We will use all means open to us to point out tile
disastrous consequences of such a step.
Whether or not the question is pending before the Arbitration Commission
we shall publicly point out the economic consequen ces of the proposal. We shall
publicly urge that it ought not to be entertained.
Mr. Whitlam and Mr. Hawke think it terri: ble that we should do this. I
reply by paraphrasing the words of Mr. Trudeau " Nf your hearts want to bleed over
this, go ahead and bleed. It is better that you should than that the country should
bleed economically because of you.
It is true that because of automation and the use of new machinery the
same amount can be produced with fewer men, or in a shorter time by the same number
of men. But surely this does not mean we should seek to work less for the same
amount of production.
Surely what we need is greater and greater production from the same
number of men, made possible by increased automation, so that real wages can be
increased and so that the needs of the community the public works and services of
all kinds which depend on production can be the more quickly and the more ch~ eaply
supplied to the community.
The time for less work has not yet nearly arrived.
Both the individual and the community have too many pressing needo. and
these needs cannot be met unless they ar--worked for.
That, at any rate, is our approach. And that is a point of difference
between us and the Opposition which I ask you to consider at this Election.
SOCIAL WELFARE AND EDUCATION
Let me now speak of that field in which my Government has done much.
The field of Social Welfare and of education. There are two promises,
made at the General Election last year, which have not yet been fulfilled. I
make no apology for this because no one could expect mie to carry out all of a three
year programme in one year.
Those promises were
To pay special attention to the needs of the low Income family with
young children.
To tackle the problem posed because many. people after paying health
insu~ ance contributions f3r many years, find that they are obliged to spend
long periods under intensive care in nursing homes as distinct from hospitals,
and do not receive hospital benefits.
I renew those promises and reiterate that as promised we shall act on these matters
during tIe life of the Parliament.
The Minister for Health has been discussing with the Funds the question
of long illness in nursing homes. And the Minister for Social Services has been
studying the varying means by which our promise on the needs of the low income family
can best be carried out.
In the field of education direct Commonwealth Government spending has
increased from $ 192 million in 1968--69 to $ 312 million this year. And by providing
a new financial deal for the States we have indirectly assisted the States to raise
their spending on education to an expected one billion, three hundred and eleven
million dollars this year or almost 15% more than 1969-70.
9a,,
I now announce a new objective to which wie give very high priority. That
is, the establishment of child care centres for children of pre-school age,.
In Australia, as in other advanced countries overseas, married women
including those with children of pre-school age are entering regular em ployment in
increasing numbers. Thus, in the decade 1960-1970 the number of married women
in the work force almost doubled from 9. to 18. 3% 7.
We wish to ensure that the children of there women have every opp) ortunity
for the fullest development in both the et.. otional and physical sense. Studies made
by the Department of Labour and National Service show that existing facilities to
ensure this are woefully inadequate.
We therefore announce as an objective our desire to introduce a Scheme
to assist in the establishment and operation of child care centres of approved standard.
In consultation with the organisations at present concerned with such child care
that is the State, Municipal and voluntary bodies which now maintain such facilities,
we hcoe to work out guidelines and standards covering the nature of the accommiodation,
the equipment required, the staffing required, and the training requirements oZ staff
needed for the effective conduct of these centres.
Further, wie will discuss with employers the most effective means of
providing incentives to employers to induce them to provide child care facilities.
Overseas experience has demonstrated the value of the participation of-employers
in such schemes. In the discussionswe propose with State and Municipal and volunuary
organi sat ions we will be helped by the liaison already established by the Women's
Bureau of the Department of Labour and National Service with many ofL the
organisations to whom we shall be speaking.
A programme of this kind cannot be put into operation overnight but we
shall begin it, and shall discuss with the States methods of increasing the numbers
of pre-school teachers to staff the centres.
This does not mean that we believe the need for pre-school teachfing
centres generally is not important. But it does mean that we think the proviston
of pre-school centres for children of working or sick: mothers should be the
first steps we take in this area.
OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
There is a mounting, and justified, concern in Australia at the risks
of environmental pollution.
Such pollution is not the inevitable by-product of advanced technology
and popuiation increase, but it does represent a failure to take fully into
account the environmental consequences of our actions, and of the disposal of
waste products by individuals and factories.
The results in Australia are not yet approaching the catastrophic
results which are threatening to occur in the more heavily industrialised and
more heavily populated countries.
But the time to begin to correct present pollution and to prevent
increasing pollution is now.
The State Governments are showing an awareness of this and the CSIRO
has Leen carrying out a wide range of investigations into environmental quality.
It has indeed been engaged in some 48 projects concerned with such matters as
studying biological control of insect pests as distinct from insecticide control
methods of treatment of factory effluent, control of the ash content of coal.
But in many cases pollution can best be tackled by a National Body
since, for instance, pollution of a stream in one State can lead to pollution of e
river in another State.
WNe therefore have taken the decision to set up a Commonwealth Office
of the Environment under the control of the Prime Minister' s Department.
This Office will be responsible for advising the Commonwealth and
recommending to us action that should be taken to prevent or reduce pollution
arising out of the activities of any Commonwealth Department or Authority.
We shall also approach the States to seek the formation of a National
Advisory Council to advise the Commonwealth, and the States, on action
to be taken in areas where co-ordination can properly be achieved.
LABOR AND WHITLAM
You will no doubt have noticed Mr. Whitlam' s a ccusations that we
are divided and divisive.
Divisive, one of his favourite words, seems to mean refusing to do
what he wants. But I am surprised he would even use the word " divided".
11.
For we have against us a Labor Party openly divided as it has not been
since 1954. The Victorian organisation is in a state of cnaos, more concerned
with internai squabbling than with anything else.
A meeting to protest against Federal Labor intervention recently
att racted twice as many people as Mr. Whitlain attracted to the opening of
his campaign. This Vict orian meeting was tu be declared bogus one week and
given Federal Labor Party blessing the next.
The group of extreme left wing unions which has for years ruled the
Labor Executive the Trades Union Defence Committee and those
characterised by Mr. Whitlam as a monolithic, junta-ridden, and undemocratic
group have not been defeated.
The struggle still goes on and the odds are that Mr. Calwell' s
pro~ hesy that nothing will change will be proved right.
They are in dissaray so complete, and so publicly evident, that one
would imagine that the word division was the last word their so-called
Leader would use.
As to their Leader I propose to leave snide personal attacks to him.
It suits him. After all who can forget the sophisticated wit and generosity
of spirit he displayed, when, on Mr. McEwen' s last day in Parliament, after
a recorc' career of real achievement for the Nation, Mr. Whitiam' s
contribution was to call out " let the lame duck waddle off".
But I bel ieve it fair to say this. Mr. idhiclam has begun his campaign
with a string of false statements.
Hie stated in his opening speech that we had placed unprecedented
reliance on indirect taxation. This is false.
He said we had a 5% O cost of living increase last year. This is
false. He said the Treasurer had " admitted" this. This is false.
He said our approach to the care of the sick aged is discriminatory
and unplanned. This is false.
He said that Labor had proposed to recognise the National Liberation
Front as a party to negotiations and that this had been accepted. This is false.
Labor proposed the N. L. F. snould be recognised as a Principal
party to negotiations, this has not been done, and the N. L. F. are regarded
only as part of the Hanoi delegation.
He has since accused me of breaking a promise to legislate for
portability of pensions this is false. The legislation has been introduced
into the House. He has accused me of doing nothing to implement the
construction of railways in South Aus~ ralia. He states no money has been
provided for this in the 197J/ 71 Budget. This is false. The Port Pirie!
Adel aide Railway is held up, at the request of the Premier of South
Australia, who has asked for further discussions. But the Budget contains
an Appropriat ion of $ 3 million for the Port Augusta/ Whyalla Railway. It
is contained in Appropriation Act No. 2, Division No. 890/ 2/ 05. At the
moment tenders have been called, received, and are being considered.
I have not dealt with all his false statements. It would be
w , arying to do so.
But the credibility of the man, and of his campaign, might
perhaps be judged by these tactics. Genuine grounds for criticism must
be scarce if he is driven to invent them.
One thing more I gould say.
Mr. Whitlam accuses us of judging the Australian people to be
selfish. Yet it is we who ask the Australian people to accept that
there should be an obligation for National Service.
It is he who urges the easier course of abolishing it.
It is we who ask the Australian people to accept the burden
of completing the task in Vietnam.
It is he who urges the easier way of immediate withdrawal.
It is we who ask the Australian people to accept the need to
join with Britain, Malaysia, Singapore and New Zealand in a pact to help
bring stability to our North.
14
It is he who urges the easier way of retreating to isolation.
It is we who place the defeat of inflation, and responsible
management of the economy, amongst our highest objectives.
It is he who pursues the popular path of promising to do everything
that anyone wants at once. Regardless of whether there are the men and
materials to keep the promises, regardless of the effect on prices.
Who is judging the Australian people to be indolent, and selfish?
I suggest that we are not and that he is.
Which does not seem a proper course for this self appointed
custodian of the national conscience to follow.
CONCLUSION I have shown some of the differences between us and our opponents.
In Defence and Foreign Affairs and concern for the future security
of Australia we are poles apart.
Domestically we are pledged to fight inflation and rising prices.
Every utterance they makE-whether political or industrial supports action which
will inflate prices. We know the importance of rural industry to the economy and of the
personal suffering which many engaged in some rural industries now face.
Labor's leader devoted two lines of his opening address to this subject and,
so far as I know, he has not spoken of it since.
We are pledged to preserve the right of dissent, except when that
interferes with the civil rights of the majority, which we shall protect. A
leading spokesman for Labor has stated that authority has had its day.
I believe that if these differences are understood you will give us
the right to govern this nation in rhe years ahead as those of our persuasion
have done in the years past. That is the right to govern in such a way that
Our security against attack will be advanced, our
internal economny will continue to provide full
employment and rising living standards.
The war against poverty will be pursued until it is finally
won.
The industrial and commercial strength of our nation
will continue to grow.
Within a broad framework of governmental guidelines
decisions will be left to individuals and not dictated
by politicians and public servants.
15
We believe that in this decade Australia can make great
advances towards freedom from fear:
Freedom from fear of aggression from without.
Freedom from fear of being old, unwanted and
uncared for.
Freedom from fear of unemployment.
Freedom from fear of being unable to meet the
cost of illness.
We will not gain all we want at once. Nor will we gain it
without working for it. But we have advanced towards the goal and given
effort by Australians, and responsibility by Governments, we will advance
still further. We ask you now to let us take further steps towards this goal
unimpeded by obstruction from a Labor Senate. We ask you give us
Government Senators and let us get on with the job.