FINAL BROADCAST.
BROADCAST BY THE PRIME MINISTER ( THE RT. HON. R. G. MNZIES)
OVERNATIONAL STATIONS AT 8 Dm0
WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 6~~
In a very remarkablo series of meetings and in my previous
broadcasts, I have dwelt upon thn great national tasks in hand, the
wonderful growth of the last decade, and the immense prospects for
the future, provided we adhere to the policies that are serving
our country so well0
In this final broadcast, p. most at the end of the
campaign, I want to put to you some of the elements which should
determine your vote.
Our opponents, by common consent the maost unimpressive
and divided. Opposition ever to sit in the Commaonwealth Parliament
even our recently converted newspapers critics have always
conceded this! are asking you to vote out of office myself and
my oxperionced and loyal band of i 1inisters, and hand over to them
the government of Australia for all purposes local and international.
It is your choice, and I know that you will make it with
the true interests of our country at heart.
The only way in which you can express your choice is by
your vote in your particular House of Representatives seat, and
your vote for the Sonate. if, for some reason you vote for a
Labour candidate on personal grounds, though you support the
Government in general, you are voting to put the Government out.
Think that over*
In making your choice*, I suggest that you look first at
Australia's position in the world, at our relations with other
countries, and at what your present government has done about
these matters, Our policy and record are quite clear. While loyally
observing our duty to the United Nations, and playing a substantial
part in Colombo Plan aid and in the civilised development of
Papua and New Guinea, we have sought to assure the safety of
Australia by developing treaty agreements with the great democratic
powers and by bringing our own defences to a modern and efficient
condition not previously equalled in time of peace. Our relations
with the U. S. A. have become close and intimate. In both London
and Washington, our views are constantly sought and offered.
Australia's standing in significant quarters overseas is both
high and useful. Would you trust Labour to imnprove this state
of affairs? Or will Labour's position be as ambiguous in office
as it has been in opposition?
We are not a neutral or unaligned government. We know
what side we are on, and have always recognised that if we are to
look for help and protection to great powers, we must accept
mutual obligations. But in the present Labour Opposition there are
influential members and aspiring Il1inisters who are deeply tainted
by neutralism, uncritical of the Communist aggressors, sometimes
their apologists, constantly critical of our allies, by no means
favourable to SEATO and ANZUS.
I want to tell you, with great gravity, that I believe
it would be a disaster for Australia's relations with the free
world to be handed over to the present Labo-ur Party.
Let me illustrate by saying something about the
position of Commnunist China. It is well-known that any diplomatij;
recognition of that aggressive country, or any movement to instal
it in the United Nations would be unacceptable to the Communists
unless it conceded China's claim to Formosa, Yet our Labour
opponents have regularly, in Parliament, advocated the recognition
of Red China, knowing that this would involve recognising its
right to take over the anti-Communist nation of Formosa! The
adoption off such a policy would, of course, damage our relations
with the U. S. A. Worse still, it would give a diplomatic victory
to China which wculd gravely weaken SEATO, encourage Chinese
aggression in South-East Asia, and discourage res~ btance to
Communism in those Asian nations which are our nearest neighbours.
Are you going to vote for this?
Turn back home, to this happy and prosperous land.
Mr. Calwell is, as usual he has done it before every
election making great play of unemployment, which he appe~ ars to
want me to make the dominant, if not the sole issue in this election,:
I have refulied to play his game for him. That there is, in total
terms, some small degree of current unemployment is true, The
special financial provisions we have made for housing and State
works are already producing a marked improvements The great
national works in various States to which we have already agreed
to make massive Commonwealth contribution will undoubtedly lead
to further employment. In his policy speech, Mr. Calwell promises
" to restore full employment within 12 months" t. Without any of his
grossly inflationary policy, we expect the same position to be
achieved under our administration,
We do not forget that the over-all statistical position
of employment, so much better here than in the U. S. A. and Canada,
provides no comfort to the willing and competent man who is at
present without a job.. We want to see him in a job as soon as
possible. Meanwhile, we have made a great improvement in
Unemployment Benefits
The conditions for obtaining it are today precisely
those laid down and operated by the Government in which Mr. Calwell
served. The one difference is in the amount paid.
Under Labour, in 1949. the Basic Wage was Z699.0 por
week. For an unemployed man with a wife and child, the
unemployment benef'it was Z2.10.0 a week, or a little over
of the Basic Wage.
Under us, in 1961, the Basic Wage is œ C14.8. O per week.
For an unemployed man with a wife and child, the
unemployment benefit is œ 7 per week, or just under half of the
Basic Wage. Yet we are told that we are indifferent to the plight
of the unemployed., But I will go further. The Labour Policy, if cai'ried
out will increase unemployment. My reasons for this statement
can be shortly stated.
Labour's programme will add hundreds of millions to the
already steadily rising Commonwealth expenditure. I understand
that Mr. Calwell says " no increased taxation". What then, is he
going to use for money, unless he forces upon the Reserve Bank
the creation of vast sums of new money, not matched by new
production., The effect of this can be imagined. Inflation
would gallop. Costs would rise rapidly, The export industries,
which cannot pass on inflated costs, and upon whose solvency
Australia's solvency largely depends, would suffer. Labour's
proposal to restore automatic quarterly adjustments of wages
would accelerate the process. These things would inevitably
lead, in the absence of strong corrective measures, to loss of
confidence, collapse and unemployment.
But the truth is if Labour wants to spend real money,
created by productive effort, it must, to honour its proi-ised
expenditures, increase taxation veir much. What would be the
effect of this on savings, industrial investment, and employment?
But the whole story is not yet told. One of the
reasons for record high eimployment in Australia over our term of
office is the high degree of indtlstrial peace and therefore
continuity of production thait nave beer maintained. A gr~ e;
contributor to this has been our legislation to help to get rid
of Communist influence in key unions. The Secret Ballot
legislation, which Labour opposed in Parliament, and which
Labour is under direction to repeal, provides that a substantial
group of union members can apply for a court-conducted secret
ballot for union office. This was designed to gez rid of the
stand-over tactics of Communist minorities. It has had a great
deal of su -ess, and would have had much more but for the
discouraging attitude of the and its feeble treatment of
Unity Tickets. Labour's policy uo repeal it would give great
pleasure and encouragement to Communist leaders, and would jsher
in a period of Comranist-promoted industrial disorder. Has
Mr. Calwell forgotten that in 1949, when he was a Minister, a
Communist-led coal strike did such damage that 118,000 people
the highest number ever were on umremployment benefit?
But on top of all this, Labour, again yielding to a
Communist uampaign which, as you all know, has been going on for
years, has promised to repeal the laws providing for penalties
for industrial offonces. Such a repeal would be a direct
incitement to strikes and lock-outs. Over-all production would
fall, and employment with it,
I have time to deal with just one more element.
Great industries, and employment for many scores of thousands of
Australians, have over these years been provided by the industrial
investment in Australia of hundreds of millions of pounds and
much technical skill from outside, chiefly from the U. K. and the
U. S. A. Labour is very critical of such investment, and will
discourage it. Yet without this much-needed capital a large
country like Australia, with a relatively small population,
cannot be rapidly and adequately developed. The political
and economic climate which has attracted investors to come here
has taken years to establish. It can be destroyed over-night,
with growing unemployment th_ inevitable consequence.
In short, Labour's so-called attractive policy of gifts
all round is both dangerous and deceptive. It is dangerous
because it will create the very evils which Mr. Calwell wrongly
charges to us. It is deceptive because you, who are offered the
gifts, will in one way or another, pay for all of them yourselves.
Our continuing policy, the notable results of which
you have seen and appreciated for a decade, is not, I hope and
believe, lightly to be abandoned by you. If you want it to go
on; if you want to be represented in the councils of the world
and in the Common Market negotiations of which I have had much to
say during the campaign, by your present experienced leaders; if
you want the credit of Australia to continue to stand high; if
you want the outside world to go on regarding Australia as one
of the most attractive countries in the world, building, growing,
full of opportunity for people of enterprise, you will vote for
the Government in both Houses, Senate and Representatives, and
send us once more to our great tasks,