63/ 137
SPEECH BY THE PRIM~ E MINISTER THE RT.
HON. SIR ROBERT MENZIES, ON IELEVISION
NETWORK TCN, GTV, QTQ NWIS TVW AND TVT
ON SUNDAY) 20TH 6CTOBE'R, 1963
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is not a policy speech. That, no doubt is
a pleasure to come. What I want to doain this occasion Is to
answer a question which is being fairly widely put as to why
we are to have an election now when the Parliament, theoretically,
has another twelve months to go. I want to answer that
by reminding you of a few things.
Before the last election that was in December,
1961 my Government had a majority of something over
When the last election finished we had a period for about
six or seven days in which noboly quite knew who had won,
It looked at one stage as if the vote would be 61 all and,
of course, that would have meant, inevitably, another election
almost immediately. Well, then, when finally the counts were
completed, it turned out we had 62-60 and by the time a Speaker
had been elected, that meant 61-60 on the floor of the House
a majority of one. A majority of one in a House of 122 I
think it might properly be said, was a pretty narrow ma3ority,
It couldn't be narrower,
And I think that at that time but you can think
for yourselves and remember for yourselves raost people thought
we would be out in a matter of months. The Opposition
certainly thought so because when Parliament met, for the first
time after the election, in February in 1962, the Opposition
at once launched a No-Confidence motion which was defeated
by one vote. Since then as you know because I have mentioned
it publicly we have ha3four other No-Confidence motions,
all designed, no doubt, to bring about the defeat of the
Government. And we have survived mostly by a majority of
one. Now, right through this period it's getting near
two years now we have had to live on the very edge of a
political precipice. Two of my supporters, staying away from
a division, not hearing the division bell or being otherwise
engaged could mean the defeat of the Government; one member
on the 65overnment side feeling very strongly about something,
crossing the floor of the House and the Opposition wins and
the Government is defeated. This is an eminently unsatisfactory
way of conducting the business of the country.
At that time, of course, the Opposition wanted an
election and let me remind you that at all times that would
have been an election for the lower House, not for the Senate,
because under the constitutional arrangements, there can't be
a Senate election before July of 1964+, and therefore had the
Opposition succeeded in any one of these repeated atlacks,
there would have been an election for the lower House only and
we would not have been hearing all this nonsense about the
extravagant waste of money involved in a single House election.
That, after all was what the Opposition wanted. They can
scarcely complain now that they have got it. Well why have
they gone cold on this election? Why is it that people who
wanted to have one so frequently have now taken up an attitude
of protest about having one. Well, the answer is quite simple,
-2
They were quite certain early in 1962 that if they
could force an election they would win it, I'm a bit inclined
to think they were right because our popularity if I may say
so had fallen very considerably and the 1961 election was
followed by a period of time in which I wouldn't have rated our
chances very high, But of course, today the position is quite
different. The Opposition knows that an election is not likely
to be a successful one for it; knows that the position of the
Government has strengthened; that there is an increasing
realisation in the country of the prosperity that we see around
us, a prosperity which bears out the policy of the Government
for stability and for growth because we have had both in full
measure and therefore the Opposition now finds that it is a
wicked thing to have an election. Well we are going to have
one and you will be the people who will determine whether it is
wicked or not. You will be the people who will decide whether
you want this precarious situation to go on with a Government
devoting quite a bit of its time to preserving itself to
discussions with the Whip, to finding whether the full numbers
are present. All these things take a lot of time and I regard
my duty to you as one to use my time and the time of my
Ministers in attonding to the serious problems of the Government
of the nation. Now why is it, I wonder, that the Opposition has
this fear, apari from what they know about public opinion.
Why do they now fear an election? I think the answer to that
is quite simple, First of all, last year they were talking
vociferously about unemploymenz, whipping up the unemployment
issue magnifying whatever unemployment existed. Today they
know that this has practically disappeared, They know, indeed,
as well as I do and as well as you do that it won't be very long
now before it will become increasingly difficult to find employees
for jobs. We are almost at the point where there are more jobs
than there are people looking for them. And the result is
that the eager cries about unemployment have now faded away and
anyhow -you wouldn't be very much impressed by them if they were
resumed, would you?
In the second place, they know quite well that
people are more conscious than they ever were before that the
issue is not so much between the Government and the Opposition
in Parliament as it is between the Government and those who
control the Opposition in Parliament the thirty-six men, most
of whom you have never heard of who sit on the interstate body
of the Labour Party which lays Aown ironclad rules as to what
policy they are to pursue. That is something that is very well
worth remembering. We have had quite a few instances of it,
haventt we, in the last twelve months*
Again, the Labour Party knows that on matters of
foreign policy, matters of our relationship with the United States
of America a very vital relationship because America is our
ally in this part of the world that on all these problems of
defence on which they now profess to be having second thoughts,
on all of these matters they are extremely vulnerable, and they
are vulnerable because they are ambiguous. Do you know what side
they are on in these matters? You take a simple illustration:
Do they really believe in Malaysia? Just up to our North, lying
there in the path of southward Communist aggression, the
expanding and aggressive activities of China; do you know what
their attitude is? Do they really believe in Malaysia? Do they
believe in it sufficiently to support it? Would they be willing
to carry out the undertaking thiat I have given publicly that if
Malaysia is attacked, then we will join with Great Britain in
helping to defend her? Is that something on which you feel you
-3
clearly understand what they have in mind? Because I don't.
I know they've said, " We support the concept of Malaysia." Yes,
well, that's right. I may support the concept of a neutral
Sweden. I may support all sorts of concepts around the world,
but the real problem is what are we going to do about it.'
That's the thing, and that is where you are entitled to ask
any any Government where it stands and what it will do. Well,
of course, the reason for the ambiguity that they suffer from
is quite clear. You just remember that it's only a little while
ago that their outside authorities told them that their policy
was to withdraw Australian troops from Malaya, to say nothing of
Malaysia, They have now gone through the form of abandoning
that, so it said, and yet the President of the A. L. P. only the
other day went on public record as saying that that was still
their policy that Malaysians didn't want Australians in and
Australians Aidn't want to be there.
Now, nobody talks lightheartedly about the possibilities
of hostilities but, believe me this country needs over the
next three years a Government that knouswhere it stand-~ that
can speak with authority and can act with authority onlahalf
of Australia. Other countrie3 are entitled to know where we
stand and what we mean to do, and that's fair enough. Therefore,
we must have an election. No Government with a precarious
majority of one can speak with power and authority for our
nation in all these difficult matters that now surround us. And
therefore there's an election. You will decide it. All I can
say is and this is, I think, a rather magnanimous statement
for a politician to make if you are going to put us out well
see that our opponents, whoever they may be and however they
may be controlled, get a real majority and can speak for
Australia and if you are going to save us in office, if you are
going to affirm your belief that we are the most competent
people to speak for Australia in these matters then give us
a decent majority. Let us be able to speak with a plain voice.
You see, the overriding interest in all this matter is the
welfare of Australiao If the electors you, and all your
friends will have that consideration in mind to the exclusion
of all others, then the election will be admirably justified
and if I may say so, I think the result might well turn out
to te pretty satisfactory for you, and of course in a small way,
for me,