SPEECH BY T1HE PRIME A~ INISñ' EA, THE AT. HION. R. G.
nEN4E,_ AT BETEGON THE 1st DECEMBR16
Ladies and gentlemen:
This seems to me like a real old fashioned political
meeting. I am particularly delighted with it because this is
a by-election, and, as you have been reminded, at this byelection,
as indeed at all elections, you have to choose
between the Gove: nnent and the Opposition.
You've heard the Government here; you've heard the
" opposition" there; ( Laughter, applause) and on Saturday week
you will decide what side you are on. is it difficult?
( Laughter, applause)
Now I've noticed that there are three types of
interjections. One says rubbish; and is rubbish. ( Laughter)
One, of cours, is my time-honoured and most honourable title,
" Pig-iron Bob" ( Applause) ( If I hadn't been made of some
material of that kind I don't suppose I would be around today.)
( Laughter, applause) And the third interjection ( Interjection:
" How did you get the name " Pig-iron Bob?")
Oh, would you like to hear the story? ( Interjections)
Now if you are prepared to remain silent IYll tell you how I
got the name. Because as you know, I was given the name by
the Communists, and I'll tell you, if you would like to know,
how I got it.
You see the Communist-led waterside workers at Port
Kembla were reusing to load a ship for Japan at a time when
we Yere at peace with that country. They undertook to take
charge of the foreign policy of this country.
Qe being the Government ( Interjections) Now,
wait a moment. Are you afraid of the story? ( Interjection:
" No" l) ., ell listen to it then. ( Interjections) There is
one thing you must always say about the Coins they're
cowardly. ( Applause)
The issue at that time uas, ' Who ran the foreign
policy of Hustralia?' the lawfully elected Government, or a
handful of waterside workers lod by the Communist, Roach, at
Port Kembla. So I went down to them at Port Kembla I
didn't talk to them on the long distance telephone I wont
down and met them on the spot, and told them that they wrere
going back to work because we were in charge of the Government
of the country. And they went back to work. ( nar' e. d
Since then I have honourably borne this title and
seen it chalked on railway bridges. Each time I see it, I
say " How well they trwat me; this is the finest unsolicited
publicity that I could possibly have". ( Applause)
But the third matter that has been thrown up a good
deal tonight during two very interesting speeches, is the
matter of the Crimos Act. I just think that perhaps to
dispose of this largely bogus argumnent, I might say a word
about it. ( There's a young gentleman over here who w'anted
to invoke the name of the Presbyterian Church. I don't know
whether he is a Presbyterian, is he? Are you, Sir? No.
Well, I am) ( Applause) So perhaps as a membor of the
Presbyterian Church I can say this to you ( Interjection:
" Does that moan the Church is wrong? The fact that 1% m not a
ruembcr, does that prove the Church is wrong?) Ohl It proves
nothing. ( Interjection: " Jell why did you mention it then"?)
I mentioned it because I thought I might like to establish
0 2,
that if it comes to discussing the views of the Presbyterian
Church I might be more qualified than you were. ( Laughter,
applause) I say, without hesitation, that the Presbyterian
Assembly was misled on this matter. My distinguished
colleague, the Attorney-General, who has devoted infinite time
and patience, and skill to this matter has written to the
Presbyterian Assembly pointing out where the errors have been
made. ( Interjection: " And they still disapprove,; i")
Uell, I don't know. The Presbyterian Assembly has
not met since they received this letter. So who are you to
say that they disapprove. ( Applause) You want to brush
yourself up on the procedures of the Presbyterian Church, I
can see that. The whole point about it is this or rather there
are two points about it. The first is this and I put
this question to you, quite se: ciously, quite coldly. Does
anybody in this hall believe that we ought not to have a
Commonwealth Law against treason? Or against sabotage? Or
against sedition? Does anybody believe that? Of course not,
The Labour Party in the Federal Parliament was so
little prepared to oppose the creation of laws in respect of
these matters, that it did not oppose the Second Reading of
the Bill. Now remember that. The Crimes Bill wont to its
Second Rleading, and the Labour Party confined its attack to a
series of particular points. ( Interjections)
I may remind you that this Bill was brought down in
Parliament, the second reading speech was made, and it : Ts a
couple of months before it came on for discussion in the
House. For the whole of that time it was available to anybody
who cared to read it.
I wonder how many people who are making noises about
it tonight, have read the Crimes Bill. I wonder if the very
young man there has read the Crimes Bill. I wonder. I wonder
how many of them have read the speech made by the Attorney-
General explaining the Crimes Bill. I wonder how many of you
know that the campaign against the Crimes Bill started after
the delivery of the Governor-Ganeral's speech at the opening
of Parliament. It was started by the Communist Party in its
newspapers. They have spent thousands of pounds on it; and
their campaign was months old before the Bill was ever
introduced, and before they knew one word of what was in it.
That is a very interesting fact. Then, of course,
people are easily misled on these matters. And so, " A Crimes
Bill' This must be terrible!"
UJell what was the great argument? I'll just deal
with one central point of this. They said, " Oh, this is a
shocking thing. Now this offence : f sabotage, you don't have
to prove anything except the man's character". That was said,
Lnd said almost in terms, by somebody in the Presbyterian
Assembly. It was utterly wrrong. It has been said, repeatedly,
by people who haven't read the Bill, and who know nothing
about the substance of it, that here is a law, which would
enable the Government to grab a man up, and to have him
convicted before a jury only on evidence of his known
cha-racter and threfore this is a monstrous political weapon.
Now the fact is that you cannot prove before the
0 3.
jury the offence of sabotage, without proving the act that was
performed and that must be proved to the satisfaction of the
jury and then in addition to that, if you want to prove the
purpose for which the act was done, then you are at liberty,
if the Judge regards it as material, and fair, to prove the
known character of the accused. Now let me give you an
example. Here is a simple example of what I moan and ll11
leave it to the good sense, the enduring good sense of the
Australian people.
( Interjection: " You'll find out on the
December". Well I'll find out, no doubt. I've been told that,
you know, in 1949, in 1951, in 1954 and in 1958. And you
will be yelling it out to me at the next General Election.
( Applause) But you'll still be wrong.
Now let us take a case, because this is an
important matter. It is very important that we should not
have unjust, or unfair laws on the ' tatute Book. Now let us
take this example. A man is engaged in technical work, or work of a
technical kind in a research establishmeont having rjlation to
the defence of the country, and some extraordinary,
complicated, difficult, new type of mechanism has been
evolved. This is of tremendous importance, let us say, to
the defence of the country; and this man, at a suitable
occasion, when it is nearing it's tests, and has had many,
many thousands of pounds spent on it, drops something into it
and smashes it.
He is seen. He drops a great lump of metal, or a
spanner or whatever it may be well, pig. iron if you like
( Laughter) he drops it in. He is at once grabbed. He has,
on all superficial appecrances, committed an act of sabotage
and a very serious one. It is simple to prove what happened.
Then he says, " Well I'm terribly sorry, but my hands were a
bit greasy and it slipped out of my hand, and I didn't mean it.
I was the most surprised man in the place".
Now let me put this to you my friends. Suppose the
prosecution could establish that that man was a card carrying
top-line Communist who had found his way into that works,
and was there in a position to do damage in line with the
Communist ideas. I put this to you, as a jury yourself; Do
you think that that fact ought not to be available to the
jury? Do you think that that fact ought to be concealed? And
a man go free of an :. ct of that kind, perhaps at the very time
when the country stands in its greatest danger? Of course not.
Yet we were told by a variety of people, and
unfortunately the Presbyterian Guneral i'ssembly of my own
Church was persuaded to believe it, that you didn't have to
prove the act; all you had to do was to prove the character.
Now I've established to you I hope quite plainly
that you must prove the act, the very act that was done. It
must be established beyond -ll reasonable doubt to the jury.
And if you do that, and if the Judge, being told what the
other evidence is, says, " Yes, it is material; it is not
unfair that this should go in" then you can prove the other
things that rel!-te to the purpose with which the act was done.
Now ladies and gentleoen, I want to go back to
where I really intended to start.
4.
References have been made here tonight to Frank
Timison. I want to toll you that I regard his death as a very
great loss to the Parliament. That is the common view, lot mo
hasten to say, of members on both sides of the House.
( Applause) Because he was an irmmensely popular man greatly
respected, greatly trusted by friends and by foe. It is a
very sad thing that he should have gone.
But, there it is, these things happen. Therefore we
have a by-election and we are, I think, speaking as head of
the Government, extraordinarily fortunate that we have a
candidate of the obvious calibre Mr. Chipp. ( Applause)
Because in Parliament at any rate, people are judged, not by
the amount of noise they can utter, but by the processus of
their minds, by how much they can think, how much they can
expound, how much they can judge the circumstances of the
times. Therefore this is a great opportunity, once norc, to
put into the Federal Parliaennt a uan of training and
intelligence and experience who is capable of doing all those
three rather difficult thing. Because chinking, and speech,
and judgment are all difficult. And he can do themn
Now what has been going on since Frank Tinson first
wont into Parliament 11 years ago? have had quite a lot of
elections. The elections nay be . reat fun to some people who
just have to attend then. But from the point of view of the
fellow who slogs through then all over Australia, they are
very hard work. We have had now, in ' 49! and ' 51 and 54 and
and ' 58, five elections in which I myself have been all
over Australia. There have boon denunciations made of the
Government. : Je have been told, even by ny genial and
admirable friend, . rthur Calwell, that we are on the vergo of
ruin. voery time ruin and desolation have been prophesied:
mass unemployment, all sorts of things. Yet the interesting
thing is that on each of these five occasions, as you all saw
the issue has been up. People in Australia are not so stupid
as not to know their own circumstances.
Uhat I object to about some of my opponents is that
they think the people are so silly. I have a great respect
for the wisdom of the people. And the people, exercising
their wisdom, and knowing their own circumstances bettor than
any politician could, has five tires in succession, returned
us to office. That is worth rmoembering. ( Applause)
And the ALP Candid . te, rhoever he nay be I don't
know in this electorate, has a heavy task. ( Interjections)
But, ladies and gentlemen, just glance over the
events, the policies of these years. Ask yourselves why it is
that you have voted for us so steadfastly If you look back
over the 11 years you can answer that question quite simply.
You look outside Australia; look at our relations with the
rest of the world. They are a great deal better, aren't they,
than they were 11 years ago? ( Inturjctlons)
Really that's a brave remark for anybody to say " No",
because I venture to say that 11 years ago, 12 years : go, our
relations with the United States of A.: erica, to c. n
extent, our relations with Great Britain, were lower than they
had been for a long, long time,
So we sot out reoairing this position. I want to
remind the audience of this. If they want to know what the
test is to take, for an example, of our rel. tions with the
United States a very important relationship. Because let
me remind them, the United States is not a neutral country.
The United States is the greatest power in the free world, and
a great friend and assistant of other countries in the free
world. Make no mistake about that. There is no question of
neutrality today about the United States, any more than there
is about Great Britain.
Therefore just lot us consider what has happened
during our term of office.
I don't think the United States of America had
except in the case of the North Atlantic freaty, the NAT6
Organisation, comi-ittd itself in military, or semi-military
terms, to other countries, because of Constitutional
difficulties, because of the position of the President and the
restrictions on his power.
iJe have, during our term of office, secured and been
largely instrumental in securing two agreements by wray of
treaty with the United States of America. One is the ANZUS
Pact, United States, ustralia, Now Zealand, a Pact of the
most enormous importance to us, an arrangement under which, at
revular intervals, there are consultations on the political and
the military level, between these three countries.
Later on came the South East Asian Treaty, in which
the partners are Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines, the
United States, the United Kingdom, France, Now Zealand and
Australia. Now here you have another form of organisation,
rather similar, in some ways, to the NATO Organisation in the
Atlantic. Let me remind you that but for the existence of
NATO, but for the close co-operation that exists between the
United States and Canada, and Great Britain, and France, and
4. est Germany, but for that, and the defensive forces which are
deployed in r. stern Europe, who knows whether we wouldn't have
been in war years ago. These are enormously important
considerations. ( Interjection: " It's not to your credit")
rlol, I hope you will allow me to take a little
credit for the fact that it was my Governent ( Applause) which
obtained ANZUS and GEATO-on neither occsion, with any
particular approval by the Labour Party. As to the other
fellows, not Labour, not Liberal one hesitates to name them
what their attitude wvas, I wouldn't know.
But I do know this, that the security of this
country has been strengthened and strengthened to an extent
that concerns everybody in this hall tonight, and everybody in
Australia, during the last ten years. ( Applause)
Now, Sir, just lot ro for a few minutes consider the
internal, the domestic side of this matter.
I wonder if everybody realises that in these years,
in these last few years, 10 years, 12 years, whatever it may
be it all began under Mr. Calwell : hose work in relation to
Imigration I think was adirablo: ( I've never denied that)
we have received substantially over a million new people into
this country. Our population has risen year by year, partly
by migration, partly by natural increase, at a percentage rate
rather higher than Japan. That is worth thinking about.
6.
Do you remember how , we always used to be told that
of course the tooming millions wont on teoiing? Our
percontage increase has boon quite remarkable.
Now this is not easily done. You can't bring as
many people as that into a country without putting enornous
strains on the oconomy of the country. You have, and very
properly, great demands on the one side for houses and schools
and roads and facilities. You can't have 10% of the
population brand now, like that, without having all these
additional demands.
Of course on the other hand you add to your labor
force hundreds of thousands of people who are accustoiled to
working hard, who Jo into factories, who have taken on great
responsibilities, in heavy industries particulaly. So you try
to get some balance out of all these things.
But there must have been quite a few people who
thought that this large nigrition programmeo was foolish because
it would throw Australians out of rwork. Don't you think it
has been a pretty good achieov-nt over these ten years to take
in, and absorb, these hundreds of thousands, this million and
iore of people, without any unemployment at all? ( Applause)
Then take another thing, take another aspect of this.
You can't increase the population of the country at this rate
without setting out to develop the resources of the country.
Because if you didn't have the development of new resources,
you couldn't carry additional population.
Therefore we have had the most truemndous tas. in
front of us of developing Australia, not solely that we should
do it: the State Governmonts have had it; local authorities
have it. But Australia, as a N.. tion has had this treeondous
task of national development.
I don't think " nybody on either side of the House
would deny that the economic development in Australia in ten
years has been almost fabulous. Even my distinguished opponent
the Leader of the Opposition, had to say the other day. " I
adrh-it" as if it were a matter of reluctance " that the
country is very prosperous".
fell there it is. ( Interjectins) My dear fellow
the fact that you are alive doesn't disprove my case.
( Laughter) ift., r all, that kind of odd thing must occur in
the best regulated countries. ( Laughter) The fact is that it
is a very prosperous country.
1What is much more important, perhaps, than individual
prosperity, is the fact that the whole basis of future
development in Australia is being laid strongly and well. You
can see it in all asp. cts of our life.
In spite of L-bour doctrines to the contrary, it is
not possible to develop Australia, a country of ten million
people, merely by the savings of ten million people. Ton
million can save a good deal we do in .' ustralia but if we
are going to develop the cuuntry and take on these enormous
undertakings, like the Snowy Mountains Schone a œ 450 million
job if we are going to take on a lot of these other tasks
and perform them, then Te must be able to attract into
Australia capital from) overseas.
Now I just want to say something about this before
I finish capital from . verscas. ( Interjections)
0 7.
I know that my friends opposite by opposite I mean
not there, but up at Canberra that my friends opposite are a
bit cold on sotting capital in fron overseas. They think, you
know, Mr. Chairman, that there is somothing wrong dout
allowing Americans, or Englishmon, or even Scotsmen, to come
into the country and invest their capital, and take somn
profits out of the country. This they regard in sono strange
way, as an evil thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wonder if they realise that
our net capital ' ain, not Government borrowing, but private
investment, genuine productive private investment, our capital
gain fron overseas in the last eight years has avera. od at
least œ 100 million a year; and last year it reached its peak
at œ 200 million. But for the movement into Australia of these groat
sums of refreshing money, this irrigation of Australian
enterprise, this creation of work and factories and i: iploynent,
the rate of progress in Australia would have been slowed down,
and we could not have accomnodated the flow of migrants that
we have received. That is just one of the simple facts of the economic
life of the nation. I-mention it to you because although you
will encounter people who will argue about all sorts of things
that touch them personally, or that are toeporary, your real
task now, and when the next General Election comes along, will
be to say to yourselves, quite simply: " Do we think that this
state of affairs will continue under the other Government?".
And of course it won't, of course it won't. eocause
people abroad are not fools on these matters. They are not
going to invest their money, and put their enterprise and skill
to work in a country if they think that it is an unstable
country if they think that it is run by people who are
ignorant, or incompetent. ( Interjections)
My dear boy one of these days you should sit down
and road a little history; it will greatly improve your mind.
You will find that your ideas about what happened then just
won't bear the slightest exanination.
( Interjection: " Now go on Bob, tell us about
inflation and r und it off. heard you') ( Laughter)
Stand up, stand up and let's Lave a look you. I
wish you would stand up because I reckon-( Interjections)
I wish you would have stood up, because at a glanco, in the
distance, I wouldn't think I needed to tell you anything
about inflation at all. ( Laughter, pplause)
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have confined m: y renarks
to a couple of ratters which I think are of considerable
importance. I just repcat to you that you have a choice to
make on this matter. All I do is to urge you to make your
choice, with thought. I know that there is always somebody
wsho will say, " Ah, the Government is going to get it in the
neck". Iell, only the other day, metaphorically, we had a
by-election in Bendigo and I was told the same thing, ,. nd what
happened in Bondigo? The Government candidate got more votes
than before. The Labour majority was lower than it was before.
I thought it was pretty g: od.
. e had a by-election in Calare. The Government
majority increased.
There arc all sorts of calariity hu-21rs, profe ssio. nal
nioaners, and those who cnt, rtain this strango oantastic,
juvenile idea that thero is something clever about kicking the
Govorriont ais long,-as you don't 17ick it Out,
You know that is a protty poor perfrmance isn't it?
They say, '" Iell it's a by-el ction, , iye them-a k: ick0 I t
won't put therm out':. Of course you would neverL dreami uf
voting theni out at a General Eliction, " Buit lot's Jve thorm
a kick". W~ ell I have hnad a fair fe's kicks in may tj-. ime, elnd I
won't loso cany sloep over it, ono a of-theoh' B3Ut I
think you will, unless this election -ces T believe ujill.
( Applause)
Question: I would like to know why does the Goernncont
consistently contest sea-ts in the country, as Liberals, against
the Country Party?
Pririe Ministcr: -dll, Sir, I Ui-sor., ry to,. disappoint but you) L i. my
not be aware of the fact that theru are t'io m-. aterial facts
here. One is that at Canberra r.-y Party and the Co: untry party
work to,, thor in Govornncnt in thei neist comr~ plete am-ity and
have done so for a record period of timeo.
The scecond is this, that if you would cast your eye
over the list of memorbers sittin-7 in thei House of Rop.-csontativizs
you would find that there are more country memlbers bolanr~ into
the) Libral Party than the(-rj are to any otheri Party, ( Apluse)
Question: I would like to direct a-questi. an, thmhyo-u
Chairman, to the Honuurablo the Prime 111inister.-4hy, a fter
spe aking for so long he did no) t me,, ntion Mr, Holt' s ' hoirro2"
budget? ( LauEghter)
Primo Minister: Sir, the : mIswer that is qui; Uc. siimp-lci 3&-cLuse it
is not c, h-orror" budot it is a perifectly sensible set of vory
mioderate proposals. And before we, go muchn longer in AIustralia
people will re alise h-ow it s. Don't forgot that people
like you were screaming blue m-ur-der: backl ir 1952. about the
*-reat i3udget that was called the " Horror 31jd But by the
time. i it had done its wo-rrk, the -oa., sJ ror o-elocted by
the people of Australia. ( 1tippiaus,.)
Question: Are you prOparod to ; ive us Neti-nal Insurance in this
c") untry?
Prime Minister: Sir, I venture to say that the Australian system of
Social Services has no sup-rior in the world. The fact is
that the answor to your complaint, if it is uno, is that there
have boon many, many thousands, hundreds of thousands of
people come out here to .' ustralia knowing what our Social
Services are. ~ nd I haven't hoard that they go back.
The fact is that you can never compare one set of
Social Services in ono country with another set in another
country, because they have different foundations and they
cover different itues. But the Social Service systom in
Australia is I venture to say we can always argue about
details in it in the broad, and in the substance, has no
supcri', r in the world. ( Applause)
Question: Will the Prime Ministor undertake soue rovision of our
education policy throughout r. ustralia so that we have
diplomats trained in sian languages, ministers trained in
observation and history of . Asian affairs and in general a
better educated Cabinet?
Prine Minister: I understand you perfectly Sir. I an very happy to
answer this question because I am surprised that you have not
realised that if any l-rii: ne iinister in the history of this
country can feel sor. pride about what has been done for
University education in Australia, I'm the fellow.
( Interjection: " You haven't done mnything")
Oh! Haven't we? : Jcll then, Sir, I will tell you
that my Govern. ient was the first Goverrnuont to establish
grants to the States for the State Universities. After
running tholn for a couple of yoirs, and establishing the
Coli-uonwealth scholarships
( Interjection: " 4f, 000 of theon")
There were 3,000. Joll don't you like to hear an
answer? You nay have learned Asian languages, but you badly
need to learn a little courtesy. ( Applause) I'll continuo
with my answoer to this somewhat jvasive inturjector of nine.
After running a systole of rants I ustablished the
Murray Convitteeoo. The i'urray Covinittej came out and
invostigated the " ustralian Universitios. They brought donm
reconreondations which involved what scoiod to us to be enorious
Coli: ronwealth oxpenditures on University education iwhich was
not, tochnically, our rcsponsibility.
adopted overy rucoiieondtion. And, in cunsoquence,
over the three years that have just finished, the C-;: innwelth
itself has fund over œ 20 million towards the Universities of
Australia c sui of money without which nuJt one of then: could
have expanded and half of then would have ) no broke.
Then we appointed a Universities Coumission they
nay of course, be inconpotont people. Ithink they are a group
of the most distinguishod people in Australia under the
Chairmanship of Sir Leslie , Mrtin.
The Connission investigated the Universities. It
brought down its recommendations only the other day for the
second three years. Those recolmendations involved an increase
in the Commonwealth payments f-om 20 mili. ons in throe years
to œ 39 millions in the next three years, ihat is a total in
six years of œ 59 million. Every recolmnendation they made has
been accepted. And then I live long enouh to hcar some
fellow get up and say, " It's time we took a bit of interest in
Universities". ( Applause
Question: I ask the Prime Minister; :' Is it a fact that since
1949 prices have a little more than doubled? It is also a
fact that your Government has given only increase in child
endowment for one child only. Now wouldn't it logically
follow that the value of that child endow) ont is about half of
what it was originally? Do you think this is a good record?
Prime Ministor: Ladies and gentlemen, this question is a perfect
example of how people can got matters confused, The fact is
that I don't need to be put in the dock about child endowment.
My own Government introduced it. Nor do I need to be put in
the dock about the extension of child endowment for the first
child; because it was my Govcrnment that did it. So we have
a little positive entry on u: r books of child endowment. Your
Party has none.
If you are going to understand the significance of
Child Endowment then I want you to have a look at this.
Child Endowront was introduced at a time when the
Arbitration Court, as it then was, was greatly concerned to
know how it could do something better for the family wagoearner.
It was because of that exanination that child
endowment came into the picture.
Later on the . rbitr,' tion Court, and the Arbitration
Commission nor, and more developed the idea that the basic wage
ought to be the highest wage that industry can bear. So that
it is no longer just a matter of counting up what a family
needs though that may have some impact on it. The real
thing is to sy, " What is the highest wage that industry can
pay?". ' Wa3os in real terms have gone up since the first
introduction of child endoweont very much indeed.
If the gentleman putting the question will study a
little the ; raph of the cost-of-living figures, the series
Index, or whatever other Index figure he may care to look at,
and also look at the rises in the basic waoge to say nothing of
the competitive wages that are built up on top of it, he will
find that there has been a very substantial increase in real
wages at a time when the child endowvont payment has stood
still. One adds itself to the othor; and the result has been
a pretty prosperous co-munity.