EMDARGO: 3.00PM TUESDAY 30 APRIL
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR. E. G. WHITLAM, TO AN
ELECTION CAIMPAIGN MEETING AT SPRINGVALE TOWN HALL, MELBOURNE,
VICTORIA, TUESDAY 30 APRIL 1974
Labor is a national party. The Labor Government is a
truly national government. We are the only party whose policies
are directed, not to sectional interests, not to privileged
minorities, but to the welfare of all Australians. For this
reason it was natural and inevitable that we would be the
first party to recognise that the true interests of the majority
of our people would best be served by an attack on the growing
problems of our cities. That was the central and winning theme
of our campaign in 1972. It is the basis of all our major programs
and policies in 1974.
To say this is not to suggesL that we are concerned only
with the cities. Of course we are not. It is merely to recognise
that the greiL majority of our people live in the cities, and that
p; li. ies for cities are therefore policies for peoile. All our
plans fcr a richer and fuller life for pee all our hopes
and ambitions for their future, for the quality of their lives and
their children's lives are bound up with our plans for the cities.
I ask you to keep in mind what this word " cities" implies in the
context of our policies it means better-schools, better transport,
better housing, better health services, better working conditions,
a more beautiful and orderly environment. It means an end to urban
sprawl, an end to squalor, an end to inefficient and dilapidated
public transport, an end to much of the ugliness that has characterised
tlhe working and living conditions of our people for too long.
As in so many areas of political life, our initiatives
f. or the cities have set the pace for all political parties.
For what did " the cities" to the Lib-ral and Country Parties
in 1972? For the Country Party they meant hostile c; icentrations
of power; " city" was a dirty word, and still is a dirty word.
For the Liberals, the cities meant one of two scquare miles of
office blocks and financia; l institutions, the centres of corporate
wealth and power. They had plenty of policies for the insurance
companies and stockbrokers who made up the Liberal concept of the
city. But for the millions of Australians who lived in tho suburbs,
especial]. y in the fast growing outer suburbs, who yearned for a better
deal in education, housing, transport, sewerage, health services and
so many other things, the Liberals had nothing to offer at all.
How gratifying it is that the Opposition is now putting forward
policies for the cities how gratifying, yet how cynical! / 2
2.
How empty and belated their promises are now.
The men who ignored the cities for 23 years, who left them
to the tender mercies of land sharks, property speculators
and developers, who tolerated generations of urban sprawl,
ugliness and inefficiency, who did nothing about the great
and growing problems of high land prices, run-down transport,
unsewered suburbs and inadequate health care these men now
come before you with their so-called policies for the cities,
policies flung together three or four weeks before a national
election which they have forced on the people by a gross
violation of constitutional principles. Of course our Iopponents
have " policies" for the cities. They dare not run away from
this issue any longer. Their policies, insofar as they amount
to anything at all, amount to no more than a continuation of
the programs my Government has initiated and pursued during
the past 17 months. I merely ask: whom should you trust
to carry out these policies? The men who spurned them for so
long, and have indeed done much to frustrate them during my
Government's period of office; or the men who worked for
years to create and propound these policies, and who see them
as a basic and central ingredient of our whole political
philosophy? In my policy speech in 1972 1 said that " a national
government which cuts itself off from responsibility for the
nation' s cities is cutting itself off from the nation's real life".
In its direct involvement in cities the Australian Government has
entered the mainstream of Australian life. We want to remould,
modernise and revitalise our cities; and ~ to do that we want to
remould, modernise and revitalise the relations between the three
levels of government national, local and State. The national
government must accept at least as much responsibility for cities
and centres as the national governments of comparable countries
already do. At last we have a national government which is doing
just that. We also have a national c:'-7ernment which is determined
to see that local government the area of government closest to
the people and closest to their needs should have the opportunity
and the financial resources to carry out their responsibilities.
for the benefit of the cities, for the peop ' le, of Australia.
Our referendums to be held with the election on 18 May will
enable us to make grants direct to local government bodies
who request-them. We want to make local government. a genuaine
partner in the federal system. This proposal has t1' rof
the overwhelming majority of local government as~.. n
and councils throughout Australia.
Let me recall some of the g~ reat things we undertook to
do in attacking the problems of the cities and improving the lives
of their people. From the outset we set about this task with
speed, with vigour and with determination.
I 3.
I promised in 1972 to establish a Department of Urban
palnadn sR egfioor naela chD evceiltyo pmaenndt rteog ioann alaynsd e, t o raedsveiasrec h thaen d ncatoi-oonradlinate
government on grants for urban purposes. The Department was
established as soon as we came to power. It is functioning
with great effect under the leadership of Tom Uren.
I promised that we would request the Grants Commission
to recommend the amount of national government assistance
required to remove the inequality of servicing developing
regions. We have carried out that promise. One of the first
acts of the new Parliiut. len. t enpow. ered the Grants Commission to
make grants to local government for this purpose i: 1 the same
way that it has traditionally recommnended grants needed to
remove inequalities between the States.
I promised that one of 1he functions of the Department of
Urban and Regional Development would be to conserve the National
Estate, our national and man-made heritage. We have established
a committee of inquiry on the National Estate and have received
its report. Our first Budget provided an initial $ 2.5 million
to be applied to the preservation of the national estate.
I promised that we would make grants to the State
Ilousing Commissions for welfare housing purposes conditional
on the funds being spent on housing communities which
provide a safe, pleasant, modern and civilised environment.
Our Budget raised the allocation for welfare housing by
26 per cent. The national government has assumed virtually
full responsibility for this important field.
I undertook through the establishment of a
Schools Commission that the national government would accept
direct responsibility for schools, whose welfare bears
directly on the quality of life in the cities. I pointed
out that the previous Government's system of per capita
grants to non-government -chools -ilone did nothing to help
tl-e stabli u: L ent r-f new Catholic schools in gro': ing areas
such as this a-. i no incUlti\' es for the reduction of
class sizes or for the training of teachers in existing
Catholic schools. It left existing Government schools
as deprived and overburdened as ever. Through the Schools
Commission the national government has accepted a continuing,
comprehensive commitment to all schools on the basis of needs
and priorities. We have almost doubled national government
expenditure on education.
I saiO w determined that every child in Australia
; oucli have tie same opportunity then enjoyed only by children
in Canberra to a full year's pre-school education from qualified
staff in proper buildings. The Budget allocated $ 10 million
foi ani early start for the redemption of this promise and we
are providing a further $ 8 million to help in the construction
and operation of child-care centres.
I promised a vigorous attack on the backlog of sewerage
in our major cities. $ 30 million was provided in the 1973/ 74
* Budget to make a start on overcoming this backlog. Discussions
are under way'with the States to develop a continuing longterm
program beginning in 1974/ 75.
I promised special help for the new developing regions
of our cities. As a result, $ 8 million was provided in the
1973/ 74 Budget to provide urgent assistance to local government
bodies in the western sectors of Melbourne and Sydney.
I pledged an all-out drive to create new cities and
regional growth centres. The Australian Government has offered
financial assistance to the States for a program of development
of twelve new growth centres in sub-metropolitan and regional
locations. An amount of $ 33 million was * provided in the 1973/ 74
Budget. We have made a bold and encouraging start with the*
new city of Albury-Wodonga. This is an outstanding example
of co-operation between the Victorian, New South Wales and
Australian Governments.
I promised a vigorous campaign to upgrade the standards
of urban public transport. We are providing $ 32 million this
year to the State Governments for urban public transport
improvements. We are proposing to provide another $ 41 million
to complete projects comnmencing this -vear. Half the money
has been allocated for the acquisition of new railway rolling
stock, buses and trains. Additional new railway tracks will
be built in Melbourne to relieve congestion and increase
the capacity for express services operating to outer suburban
areas. Fundamental to our plans for better cities is'an attack
on the crippling problem of land prices. The cost of land is
the greatest single component in the cost of a home and the
greatest impediment to a fair deal for the average homebuyer.
We pledged to set up Land Commissions with the help of the
States to buy up large tracts of residenthial land in new
suburbs and towns and sell them at fair prices as fullyserviced
building blocks. The anti-Labor States have stalled
on this proposal. They have dithered and blocked our planswhile
the cost of buildingx land has contiruee to soar. Who
are the interests who benefit front this obstruction? They
are the land speculators, the profiteers and developers who
have grown fat on the savings of young Australian families.
Their interests, and their interests alone, have been served
by the dilatory and obstructive tactics of the anti-Labor
States. Remember that the States have all the powers they need
to control the soaring price of land. The anti-Labor States
refuse to use them. And all the time land is becoming
increasingly expensive further beyond the reach of the average
wage earner. In Melbourne the average cost of a block of
land is $ 13,000; in Sydney it is $ 18,000. In fAelbourne the
rate of inflation in the cost of land more than doubled in
1973. It increased by 46 per cent, while average earnings
Sby 12 per cent. The cost of land in Melbourne now
'. esents 60 per cent of the cost of a home. It takes the
. ivalent of 22 months' wages to buy an average block of
in Melbourne and 32 months' wages in Sydney. The Li bera. L
Governments have done absolutely nothing to check this
jndalous profiteering in the price of land. They have
, eat powers at their disposal. They have done nothing.
My Government established its Land Commission program
to attack this urgent problem. We are determined to provide
land at prices people can afford. We will not tolerate the
increasingly common spectacle of thousands of young homeseekers
being turned away from land auctions in Melbourne and Sydney
while prices. soar beyond their reach. In the first part
of our program, we offered the Victorian Government $ 30 million
for a land acquisition program the highest amount for any
State. New South Wales was offered $ 28 million, the Queensland
Government $ 6 million, the Western Australian Government $ 6 million
and the Tasmanian Government $ 1 million. Only in South Australia
has the Government taken appropriate action to attack land
price.-s, and their legislative steps have done much to
stabilise the price of land. They have also sjigI1d an agreement
with ry Government they are the first State to do so
for the establishment of a Land Commission. What a contrast
with the anti-Labor States! In New South Wales where
land prices are at catastrophic levels the Askin Government
has refused to accept our offer. In Brisbane where land
price inflation is running at 100 per cent a year, the highest
in Australia the Queensland Government has also rejected our
offer. In Western Australia a hostile Upper House prevented
the recent Labor Government from accepting our Land Commission
proposal. And under Hamer nothing happens. There could be
no better example of State Government obsuruction at the expense
of the people in Australia's cities.
Despite all the Liberal talk a. out the cities, their
sudden discovery of the plight of city dwellers, their lastminute
conversion to the cause of the cities, their record
on land prices shows where their real interests lie.
Here is an area where the Liberal/ Country Party State
Governments have great and undoubted powers. They have
refused to use them. We will be judged by our record and
performance. Let the homeseekers and young families of
Australia judge the Liberals by theirs.
In the light of their miserable and obstructive record,
. iho can take their last-minute promises seriously? They are
vague and unspecified promises. Over all their promises
for the cities, for education, health and welfare hangs
the equally vague and unspecified commitment to cut. back on
Gov-enment spending. The people of Aus-alia can be sure of
one thing: if the Liberals were to cut back on spending, they
would make their cuts in the only area where econo.: ies w.:. uld
be meaningful that is, in the essential and histric
programs my Government has undertaken to improve our citiz:;
and make them worthy places for ustralian people.