PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS TO N. S. W. STATE COUNCIL
OF THE SYDNEY
13.4.1975 It was the Fisher Labor Government which inaugurated the
East/ West Railway and yesterday I symbolically inaugurated
the largest railway project in Australia since that time
a railway of about 830 kilometers costing $ 100 million, and
if I may respond to what John Ducker was saying by way of
introduction, this weekend in South Australia we did two
things which I believe indicate what could be done by
co-operation between a Federal and a State Labor Government.
We inaugurated the first subdivision under the Land Commission
of South Australia. This is a proposal which we came out with
in 1972. The Australian Government can't make laws concerning
land use. Every State Government can. -But the Federal
Government's'financial resources are much greater than those'
of the State Governments. If you bring them together, you can
see ' that by Federal finance you can acquire sufficient land
for expanding urban development, and with State co-operation
you can see that that land is fully serviced and is made
available at cost.
We did it on Friday in South Australia. Then we went on to
the middle of Australia and climaxed the remarkable week
in the history of railways in Australia. Because this week
we tabled on Wednesday morning in the House of Representatives
the Heads of Agreement by which the Australian Government will
acquire the South Australian Railways. That night the Senate
passed the Australian National Railways Commission Act and on
Thursday we introduced the legislation for the Interstate
Commission, which is mentioned in the Constitution, and which
was supposed to make it possible to co-ordinate transporta
modes throughout Australia, and I think I can say that by the
end of June we will have oh incidentally, we will later this
month be making similar arrangements with Tasmania to acquire
Tasmanian Railways by the end of June we will have in operation
in South Australia and Tasmania and maybe one or two other
States, the free hospital services throughout Australia.
I point out that these things are perfectly feasible. There
is no Federal intrusion or aggrandisement. There were free
hospitals throughout Australia when Labor went out of office
in 1949, ' under a five year agreement which the Chifley Labor
Government had made with every State Government, Labor and
Liberal, and after the agreements had run their five years,
the Menzies Government did not renew them, and therefore we
ceased to have free hospital services in Australia except in
those States which kept them on through their own resources.
Of course, only one State has done it Queensland. Sure you
have free hospital services there, but they're the worst
anywhere in Australia.
And similarly the Constitution has always said that the
Commonwealth can build or acquire a railway in a State with
the consent of the Government of that State. Now we've done
these things. We've restored free hospitals in the two Labor
States, and we have acquired the railways in the two Labor
S-tates. And if that were done everywhere in Australia, all
this nonsense we hear about the financial burdens of the States
would be ended.
And I put it to you bluntly: We won't remain in power federally,
and you'll not get into power in the States if you fall for
this line which was around at the end of last year that the
way to survive was to blast Canberra. It'll get nobody anywhere.
But by co-operation between the Federal Labor Government and
the two State Labor Governments we have in Australia, we will
have solved the financial problems in those two States. We will
have at last decent railway systems in two States and we will
again have free hospital services in two States.
Now. I come back to what I've said. Since I addressed you last
year, our opponents have-changed leaders, both in the New South
Wales Parliament and the Australian Parliament. The interesting
thing is that the new Liberal leader in New South Wales played
a central role in destroying the Federal Liberal leader.
There are important lessons to be drawn from what was done
to Mr. Snedden. There are lessons not only to be learnt by
the Liberals, but by us.
A basic weakness in Mr. Snedden's position was his inability
to establish a sound relationship between the State non-Labor
Parties and the Federal Liberal Party, particularly after the
Queensland elections in December. The State non-Labor leaders
thought the easy way for them, the cheap road topolitical
popularity was just to knock Canberra, to be as unco-operative
and as obstructive as possible. Now the fact is the St~ te
Parties, whether they be Labor or Liberal, cannot live to
themselves. For good or ill, the people are going to judge
the Parties as one. It's true of both the great Parties, and
especially true of the Labor Party. No member, no candidate,*
no leader will get any kudos from the public by joining any
chorus against Canberra. It is easy enough, but'it is deceptively
easy because the people are not at all impressed.
They know that the Labor Government in Canberra is carrying out
the program of the Australian Labor Party. One program for onc
party. We're all going to be judged by our success or failure
with that program. We will succeed with the program to the
extent that the whole Party at all levels gets behind it and
goes out to sell it. There are two aspects about the program
which call for a special effort by all members to promote it.
It's that a great many of our programs are first designed to
benefit those in the community who can't speak for themselves,
or who can't make their voices heard very well. Another aspect
is that some very important issues such as equal electorates and
equal representation don't always make an immediate or dramatic
appeal to the imagination of the general public or, it must be
said, for our own members and supporters.
The programs most likely to be changed, the programs most
likely to be reversed by our opponents, are those which benefit
the inarticulate and the underprivileged. The programs marked
for the axe are those which benefit those with the least
political leverage. Mr. Fraser has already made it plain that
he will campaign for massive cuts in Government spending.
No more than his predecessor will he be very specific about
the areas in which he would make those cuts. But the
irresistible logic, the logic of economics, the logic of
politics is that the cuts would be made in the politically
expendable areas. Now who is politically expendable for
Mr. Fraser? All those underprivileged groups who were entirely
neglected in their 23 years in office, whose needs we have tried
to identify and to meet. There is already a ready-made list of
expendable programs, the programs imperilled by the High Court
challenge on the constitutional validity of the Australian
Assistance Plan and the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
The challenge was initiated by the Victorian Government and it
is su~ pported by the New South Wales Government. All these
programs benefit the relatively inarticulate or underprivileged.
The beneficiaries are for the most part scarcely in a position
to speak up for themselves. This is why they, as our fellow
citizens, are so vulnerable. This is why programs designed to
benefit them are politically so vulnerable. If we don't speak
up for those programs, if we don't speak up for the people who
would be deprived by their abolition, then no-one else will.
It's impossible to find any consistence in the approach of the
New South Wales Government to our programs. It would be wrong
for me to give the impression that the story has been one of
total non-co-operation. There has in fact been a great deal of
co-operation, although there has too often been needless delay
even in areas where the New South Wales Government has ultimately
decided to come to the party.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge one matter in which
there has been praiseworthy co-operation from the New South
Wales Government, making available highly qualified people to
assist in Australian Government enquiries and commissions.
A great number of New South Wales judges have been made available
by Sir Robert Askin to serve on our enquiries and commnissions.
Let me give you one instance here, where I must say I'm
disappointed by the obstruction one finds in the Labor movement,
and particularly-in the Trade Union movement. It is the proposal
for national compensation. True we've had for years ever since
the Lang Labor Government we've had compulsory workers'
compensation in New South Wales, and ever since the McKell
Government we've had compulsory third party insurance for people
injured on the roads.
But there are still a great number of people for whom there is
no cover at all, and for those where there is cover, or where
there appears to be, it is quite problematical how much you'll
get and how long you'll have to wait for it. Now we've come
out with full proposals here, and it is amazing the link there
is between some trade union people and the insurance companies
in obstruction.
The fact is that the existing schemes leave thousands
unprotected. For example, people who are injured at home,
many of them women. Our scheme will compensate and
rehabilitate people who are injured or become ill anywhere.
It will be done automatically, and there will be a proper
income until they are rehabilitated.
Now this has been something which many of us have spoken about
for years. It has been in the Party platform for some years.
It was in the policy speech in 1972 and in 1974. 1 must say
I am disappointed, and I resent it that some union secretaries
make an alliance with lawyers and with insurance companies to
keep the old system.
That is are we to be the conservative party? Whose interests
do we have in mind? Now here again the beneficiaries of a
Labor reform are not well organised and they're not able to
drum up pressure. By contrast the opponents, or obstructionists
are well organised some unions, lawyers, insurance companieb.
Someone has to speak up for those who are not in a position
to make their voices heard in any powerful or well-organised
way. That is a Job for all of us in the Labor Party, not just
a few ministers. I do hope all of you will see what is at stake
here, and will speak up for it.
There is not much point in putting things in the platform and
getting a Government which tries to carry out the platform and
then have people, including those in the Labor Party, with very
dubious allies jeopardising it and sabotaging it. Now this is
not only a moral obligation for members of a Party like ourselves.
It is not just an obligation we have because these programs are
part of our pledges put twice to the people. Strong support for
these programs makes sound political sense, at the-. State level
as well as the national level. There is no dividend for state
branches in downgrading national programs or trying to draqw a
distinction between State and national policies.
I heard on the radio that Neville Wran was making the point this
morning in addressing you that the present State Government was
seriously neglecting the growing areas of this State and was
showing concern solely for those areas where it felt it had
political obligations itself.
Now I know that a very great number of people, including people
in State branches and State Parliament resent it if one exposes
shortcomings in the State. That is surely a false patriotism
to assert that everything in the State garden is lovely. It is
not. And we got into power federally because we were able to
convince the people in Sydney and Melbourne in particular that
there were things grievously wrong in the State backyards, that
they could be cured if there was federal interest shown in them,
but they would only be cured if there was a Federal Labor
Government showing interest in them.
Now many people in the Party think well this means that we
are neglecting existing areas. I'd like you to take this
approach to it. If we were to find a country town grow up
every year of the size of the increase in population in Sydney
we'd want to see that that country town had proper schools
and hospitals and transport connections and so on.
But because it happens in an already large place, like Sydney
or Melbourne, we're neglected. Now what we're saying what
Neville Wran says this morning, what I say this afternoon is
that we must look after those western and southern suburbs,
we are merely acknowledging that governments have an obligation
to people wherever they choose to live, and it's those suburbs
that are the growing areas in this State. It's not that one is
neglecting the areas which are already full, which are already
supplied, which are already serviced, which are relatively
static in population, it merely-is that we say that if people
have to go and live or choose to go and live in those new
areas then it's our obligation, as a Party seeking office to
see that the Governments which we elect of which we are the
supporters and members see that there are proper services
in those new areas.
If you have a city of 20,000 in the country you'd certainly
see that it had proper services. If an equivalent population
comes in some part of the metropolitan area it's no less
obligatory on us to see that there are services there. Now
it is true that since the War, there have been a considerable
number of large country towns which have grown up. The
population of Wollongong for instance has much more than doubled
since the War, or of Mt. Isa, or of Gladstone, or Whyalla, and
very properly governments have seen that they get services
to match.
In Sydney and Melbourne where an equivalent population arises,
State Governments in general have neglected them, and it'gno
less than the statistical truth to say that in the western
suburbs of Sydney there are not the hospital facilities that
there are in the areas where the population is more static as
in the country or the older parts of Sydney. And there are
not the facilities for teachers' colleges or technical colleges
or colleges of advanced education or universities in those areas
that there are in the longer-settled parts of the city.
And it is a false patriotism which says that the Federal
Government has no role to play in interstate highways: of
course it hias. It has an obligation under the Constitution
to look after trade and commerce with other countries and
between the States.
With the Hume Highway, the busiest road in the southern
hemisphere, and one of the worst, the State Governments-. have
not been able to make a decent road. Are people to complain
when you have a Federal Government which will accept its
obligation to see that roads like that at least are made
trafficable all the year round?
And again, there are areas such as this port of Sydney, the
busiest port in the southern hemisphere, but a grossly
inefficient port. There again it deals with interstate or
international trade, and it ought to be the function of a
Federal Government to see that the communications with that
port from other ports are made efficient.
This is not an intrusion. It is a responsibility of the
Australian Government under the Constitution and we ought to
see that the port is improved. If you lend yourself to the
argument that the Federal Government shouldn't come into the
Hume Highway, or shouldn't come into the port of Sydney,
you're just saying that the Hume Highway is going to continue
to be inadequate and the port of Sydney is going to get less
and less efficient.
Now the way to win a New South Wales State election is to show
that the State Labor Government will co-operate in the areas
and the programs where the Lewis Government has been inactive
or obstructile. When the people have to choose between solid
progriams, solid benefits, and slogans or shiboleths about State
rights, they will come down on the side of the genuine article.
But they have to know what the choice really is. And that means
all of us have to put the case as fully and as forcefully as
we can.
I myself earlier mentioned about the question of distribution
of electorates and so on. Let me give you the figures for
this State because I believe they will illustrate one of the
things where one will be able to draw a very easy comparison
between us and our opponents in the coming months.
The population of an electorate in the House of Representatives
in this state ought to be 63,000, i. e. the average of the
whole State divided by the number of electorates. But tIW
proportion at the moment varies grossly. There are some'I
electorates which are 32% above that amount, i. e. an enrollment
of 83,000 and there are some which are 26% below, namely
46,600. Now if you have electorates that different 83,000 and 46
thousand quite-obviously the people in those electorates are
not having an equal say in electing Members of Parliament.
They're not having an equal share in making the laws. They're
not having equal access to the things which Governments have
to provide. Theseare not exceptions. These are ones which you
can see in many cases. Now I quoted one electorate which had
83,000 people on the rolls at the moment: that is the electorate
of Mitchell. There's another, Robertson which has 81,000.
Chifley has 80,000. MacArthur has-79,000, and Macquarie, a
country electorate incidentally, has 74,000. Now take the
other ones. The smallest one which I have quoted 46 thousand
is Darling. There is Hume which has just under 50,000. There
is Sydney, obviously a metropolitan electorate which has 51,400.
There is Riverina 52,000, and Wentworth, again, a city
electorate, 52,000. Now this is not a fair 4o.
Some people might say " Oh, you mustn't touch these things.
People will think there is something crook about it." The
fact is it won't deter the Government from supporting an
equal form of distribution. It is the fair thing. It is
the just thing, and it is possible to come out with a
distribution where no electorate has more than 5,000 people
on the rolls than any other electorate in a State.
What we've come out with the distribution which has been
made, which is being proposed ensures that those with the
smallest enrollment are the electorates which are growing
fastest, and those with the largest are those which are growing
slowest.
Now I do ask you to stand on your principles in these things.
You'll get no votes, you'll get no respect by departing from
your principles, and if you look at the facts, you can embarrass
your opponents. You will get respect and success for us.
Silence, obstkuction, conservatism or timidity on such matters
as the equal electorates or what I've mentioned earlier,
national compensation, will not gain votes in a State election
not least because the Australian Government, and I too, will
not cease to advocate. We are not going to back-track on the
platform, or on the undertakings given in the policy speeches.
We have no alternatives. It is a commitment we cannot escape.
It is a commitment for the whole Party. It is a commitment
that no-one in the Party can escape.
Ladies and Gentlemen, don't let's think that just by running
dead or knocking the Government you've had, that you'll help
it or you'll get a State one. The way to provail is to carry
through against the attacks of our opponents, the obstruction
of our opponents, the attacks, the obstruction in the Parliament,
in the papers, in the courts. We won on these platforms and we
will win again on these platforms. If we weaken, if we ae
divided on them we won't survive ourselves and nobody else will
do any better, either, in any section of the Party.