FILE L9
FOR MEDIA SATURDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 1979
ADDRE~ SS TO VICTORIAN STATE COUNCIL
As we approach the end of this decade the Liberal Party in
Victoria and Australia is ex-periencing a sense of history,
optimism and challenge.
Thirty-five years ago last October 13, Robert Menzies brought
fourteen fragmented organisations into one. Modern liberalism
was born on -that day under one banner with one body of ideas.
Little more than five years later, and thirty years ago this
December 10th, the Liberal philosophy won endorsement from
the Alstralian electorate. The appeal made in the policy
speech in 19490 was unqualified and timeless. It asked: " Are we
for the subordination of the individual to the universal
officialdom of governmnent or are we for the ancient British
faith that govcrniments are the servants of the people..."
The spirit of that -time was embodied in the belief that " The
best people in this commnunity are not those who leave it to the
other fellow but those who by thrift and self sacrifice
establish homes, bring up families and add to the national
pool of savings owing nothing to anybody".
It is not surp~ rising that this struck a chord with Australians
in 1949 and began an unbroken run of 23 years of Liberal
government in Australia. But by the end of 1975, the national
splirit had sagged to a demoralising and depressing level.
I appealed then -to Australians to retain their idealism; their
faith in institutions; their sense of reform; their dedication
to democracy. I called upon them for a return of liberal
values. I urged them to recall what they had seemingly forgotten.
That we must " re-ward personal initiative encourage
investment and mobilise the imagination and the resources
of the Australian people...".
In the last -four years Australians have shared in that conviction
and are now sharing in the hard-won successes. And they are
hard-won, simply because the fight to free the spirit of man,
to unhinge him from government control, is an unending one.
In a very real sense the battlefield must never be vacated.
The fight for individual freedom can never be won for all time.
What we must do now is to win that freedom for our time; to hand
on to our children conditions and attitudes in society which allow
for the full expression of individualism and creative spirit.
We must never allow the beliefs which brought us our success
to become corroded. / 2
We need to remember -that since the War, Labor governments
won decisive mandates from the electorate in 1946 and 1972.
To forget the lessons of the three years following those
victories, is to invite certain failure. The criticisms of
Labor Government leading up to 1949 were as comprehensive and
complete as they were leading up to the election in 1975.
Yet incredible as this may seem now, the behaviour and resolution
of the Labor movement today, demonstrate that those
desires are still Very much part of the A. L. P. passion.
The recent A. L. P. conference in Adelaide resolved to seek
to alter the Constitution to give the Commonwealth powers
to implement the Labor Party's economic and socialist
objectives. One of-these is nationalisation.
Such a resolution demonstrates that the socialist fires
throughout the years have been kepL alight. The stubborness,
inflexibility and unreality of L abor principles are the same now
as they were then.
Still, the Labor emphasis is on government control and
governm~ ent management, still they nurture the view that all
individual security can be independent of individual effort.
These theories have no relevance in the ' 80s. They embody
false va'lues. Yet in 1972, by default, we gave Labor a chance
to put these theories into practice. That this was possible is
a greater indictment of us than it is a reflection of Labor's
capacity -for survival. I caution you st~ rongly to prevent these
doctrines gaining supremacy again.
In 1975 as in 1949, Liberalism was called upon to inject
commonsense and commitment into the Australian nation and its
economy. It summoned -the creative and regenerative capacities
of the nation. It promised a philosophy that would give these
capacities expression.
We' prclaime -the role of the individual after three ycars of
socialism had challenged individual rights; we exalted men and
women after three years in which socialism had exalted government.
For three years Labor had weakened the economy and its capacity
for growth. All our efforts were directed towards securing
sustainable growth without which many of our philosophical
objectives are impossible.
Now we are embarking on a new decade of challenge. As a party and
as a nation we must reassert our pride in individualism, personal
freedom, self-advancement in short, Liberalism. We must
re-kindle the vision of the future; the desire for enterprise;
the excitement of creating and building; the dedication to scale
new heights; the willingness to mobilise the talents of all
Australians. / 3
-3-
It is when we take the individual capacities of all Australians
for granted; when we begin to believe that the role of the
government is superior to the role of the individual; then
we begin to move Australians from the responsibilities of
individualism to the excesses of socialism.
The period 1949 to 1972 was a powerful expression of Liberalism.
Activity, production and investment, grew and diversified.
Before the War and up to the 50s, our international trading
reputation was built on our great rural industries. Soon, this
dependence began to change as manufacturing industries, started
in the 40s, expanded and broadened our industrial base.
Acomprehensive migration programme opened up domestic markets.
Foreign investment brought new technology and skills. Suddenly,
Australia was the land of greater opportunity, spawning men and
women of adventure, commitment and achievement.
Then came the mineral boom, for which the figures tell the
best story. In 1948-49 mineral exports represented 6 per cent
of Australia's total exports. By 1970-71, this figure had grown
to 25 per cent. They too, brought new technologies, new markets,
new communities in remote areas, new thrusts to decentralisation.
The Government's job, then as now, was to provide the structure
in which all this could proceed. Because they did the challenges
of the 50' s and 60' s were being accorded the appropriate response.
Somehow, though, success broughtits own temptations in the
Had we lost our nerve? Had our creative drive expired? Had we
continued to believe in our principles, but failed to fight for
them? Were we questioning our own dedication and idealism?
Whatever the case, we developed a short-sightedness about the
effects of Labor Government and the hustings rang with the
emptiness of Labor slogans all through 1972; but this time to
a new, younger and more receptive audience. The presentation
was the same. Here was the superficially-attractive idea that
the Government should meet all individual needs and Labor
promised to do just this.
There was no mention of obligation upon the individual; no
expectations of merit, or excellence, or exertion from all
of us. Whole generations who had grown up with a level of
security and freedom from need, suddenly began to take these
for granted. Liberal achievements in welfare and social reform
invalid pensions; increased child endowment; homes for the aged;
massive advances in education; Commonwealth scholarships; the
building of universities and teaching colleges, science blocks
and school libraries all these were forgotten as the electorate
was persuaded artificially that it was time. Time for what?
The question was soon to be answered. But not as the nation
had expected. / 4
-4-
Was it the time for increases in p-ersonal income tax to the
tune of 125 per cent in three years? Was it the time for,, in
various 12 month periods, Commronwealth Government expenditure
to rise by 46 per cent? Award wages to increase by 38 per cent?
Government expenditure in health, under Fr. Hayden's management,'
to rise by 113 per cent?
Was it time for government employment to grow by 100,000 while
private sector em * ployment fell by 150,000? Was it time for,
the economy to stagnate after years of impressive economic
growth under Liberal governments? Was it time for us to be
shown that Labor could not afford all its grandiose plans: that
Labor's big spending could not be financed from an economy
crippled by Labor policies? Whether it was time or not, it
happened. in 1975, as in 1949, it befell the Liberal Government to arrest
the drift of socialism. We have been supported in this task by
a nation which prides itself on economic security and the capacity
of its members to work together. We are together learning that
we cannot make greater demands of government than the nation' s
productive capacities can provide.
Yet, in spite of our real success, there are always prophets of
negativism and nihilism; people who opt for the easy task of
tearing down rather than th1-e difficult one of building up.
I am heartened by a current A. L. P. strategy document which says,
and I cuote!
" We live in the best country in the world, rich in
human and natural resources. We produce most of our
own oil. We have abundant supplies of coal and other
minerals. We are -the best-educated society in the
world".
What greater tribute can there be than that to the record of
Coalitrion C~ v ! r n me P,
The last four years have been a significant part of this record
of coalition government. We are placed to enter the 80' s with
a prospect for the future much brighter than most of the
industrialised world. I say to you unapologetically, that
Liberalism stakes its claims to Government in the 80s on its
capacity to secure economic growth.
There is no future for Australia without economic growth.
Without economic growth the aspirations of an advance society
cannot be realised. Without economic growth we cannot as a
nation create more jobs; we cannot as a nation meet our welfare
responsibility; we cannot as a nation support generously the
arts and cultural activities; we cannot as a nation provide
the life which maximises freedom, opportunity and achievement.
The signposts of better economic conditions over the last four
years are easy to read. We have reduced inflation. Our industry
is now competitive. Costs are down and exports are up. Private
capital inflow into Australia in the last financial year was
the highest since 1971-72. Commonwealth Government expenditure
has been severely contained in the last three budgets.
Real investment by business increased by nearly 10 per cent
last year. Civilian employment in the year to'* July grew by
60,000. In this financial year, the gross value of rural.
outpu-t is estimated to increase 60 per cent in 1977-78 levels.
And when we look at what is happening to some economies overseas
with rate! s Of inflation and their interest rates, we h-ave
done well, and let us not be denied our achievements. They
have not come by accident or under sympathetic conditions.
These are -the result of deliberate government policy.
At the end of a decade, our economic machinery is geared to
move us confidently into the future. We have abundant raw
materials, materials the world wants and needs. We have
energy supplies in an energy-scarce world.
Coal, natural gas, crude oil, electricity and uranium
represent an impressive total endowment of energy commodities.
They are high in demand in the world and this demand is likely
to intensify in the 80s. Our response to this privileged
position is one of credibility and consistency. In the first
Place, if any economic system is to achieve growth and stability,
inflation has to be controlled.
In other words, resources themselves cannot generate the
economic growth that is needed. They must be coupled to
realistic and forward-thinking policies. Our willingness as
a Government to harness our energy reserves has earned us
international respect. It is already paying dividends.
With oil, our policy encourages further exploration and
development at a -time when leading commentators were advising
that production from Australian fields would taper off. Only
18 months ago, it had been p-rdicted during the 80' s that our
self-sufficiency in oil would fall to 25%. But our realistic
prici ng policy now means that Australia should be at least
502% sel-F-s,,! fic~ ienjt-in oil, ._ j-til well into the / 6
6
The position with coal is just as encouraging.
Current coal exports of 38 million tonnes a year are
expected to rise to 200 million tonnes by the year 2000, according
to the estimates of the International Energy Agency. our
massive reserves of coal provide us with unprecedented opportunities
for developing raw materials here in Australia. Coupled with this,
as J apan finds her energy costs mounting, aluminium smelter
projects are moving to Australia with abundant raw materials
and low-cost power. One of the results of this is that, whvile
Australia now has only 1.5% of the world output of aluminium,
if we take account of the new projects firmly committed in
Australia, that share if likely to rise -to over 10% by 1985.
The uranium picture is just as encouraging.
We possess massive reserves. At a time when the requirements of
the Wes-trn world are expected -to triple by ,1990. All of this
requires a government which, in changing circumstances, can
acco-, mmodate these changes and adapt to them.
It: can never be over-stated that these energy achievements
are the result of our policies, our decisions, our encouragement
of the development of our resources. A Labor government would
destroy investment and economic growth by excessive taxation,
e:: cessive regulation and excessive intervention.
The A. L. P.' s decision not to mine uranium is shameful and
selfish, but for the A. L. P. to declare that it would nol honour
existing contracts constitutes a savage threat to our international
trustworthiness.
It represents Labor dogma at its worst. It pays little regard
to reality. These are threats to our international wellbeing.
They must he taken seriouslv.
We must not allow any paralysis of willpower to provide the very
momtentum, that Labor needs. Mr Hayden recently argue-d that,
" There was nothing revolutionary or even. particularly
radical about the Whitlam programmes".
( Chamberlain Lecture, Mlarch 1979, P. 19)
His sympathy for the Whitlam programmes and determination to
implement them again was evident in his recent performance at
the A. L. P. Conference . in Adelaide. The resolutions of that
conference to which a Labor government is bound, express a
commitment to return to extravagance and economic indiscipline.
How else can we interpret the conference ' s resolution that a
Labor government would increase enormously the size of government
and the extent of its activitios, that it would abolish staff
ceilings in the Public Ser-vice.
7-
A Labor government would seek to amend the Cons Litution to give
the Commonwealth Government powers " as are necessary" specifically
to implement the Labor Party's economic and social objectives.
It would seek to amend the Constitution to reduce the power
of the Governor General, to strip the Senate of the power of
to reject: any proposed laws. A Labor government would allow
unionists to strike in the course of their activities, immune
from any pains or penalties thereby placing unions above the law.
It would introduce new taxes a resources tax, a capital gains
tax, a wealth tax and it would increase taxation.
It would monitor the operations of international corporations
and supply information collected in this way to Australian
trade unions and international trade union organisations.
It would uise nationalisation as a means of economic management.
These proM4 sed assaults on a stable and internationally credible
Australia must be taken seriously What kind of credible political
party is it which ignores inflation to such an extent that the
words ' anti-inflationary' were not even included in the
Wages and Tncomes Policy of the A. L. P.
That was the policy that Mr. Hawlke called a gutless sell out to
the left.
It is any wonder that since the Conference Mr. Hayden has
protested, " tha1: considerable suspicion of the Labor Party
and all Labor Party governments remains in
the electorate."
( T.-JITRvan Le Ct.-ure. Octob-er 1079,
This suspicion is well-founded. We must never abandon our
faith in Liberal principles to secure national goals.
Th--history of Liberalism since 1945, has provided a catalogue
of Prosperity, stability and achievement that we must seek
to emulate in the 80s. But, our commitment to Australia can
only have active relevance when our philosophies gain
expression in Government.
Only in Government can we continue to attack inflation,
promote economic growth, and increase job oppo rtunities
for all Australians; can we secure the monarchy, the Parliament
and the Constitution from savage attack; can we secure the
devolution of economic and political power which is the hallmark
of real freedom; can we secure the vital role of the States in
our federal system; can we secure freedom for all individuals
and protection for all people from the intrusion into their
lives of large and complex bureaucracies. These goals have
been n--ached in the past because of Coalition Government.
It would be short--sighlted, to say the least, to allow them to
be placed in jeopardy now. I need not remind any of you that
the waterless desert of Socialism is no breeding ground for
individual freedom.
Let us remember that at no time in the past, did
Sir Robert Menzies possess a majority in his own right
in -the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Had he at any -time denied the coalition, he would have been
effectively denying Liberal Government. What then would have
happened to Australia in the last thirty years?
The success of the coalition in the past has certainly sprung
from commitment and faith by all of us. But is has been
sustained by individual and party * discipline; by -that kind of
restraint that lends strength and dignity to any organisaticn.
We need to remember that what may take years to build, can be
easily destroyed. The very definition of coalition implies
the possibility of differences. I have made the point often.
But I cannot recall any federal policy issues that have been
decided on party lines.
There are no instances where Liberal policy has been hampered
in it execution by the existence of the coalition. These are
testi_-ng times for our party. It is doubtful if ever before,
in Deace time Australia, other than in the immediate post-war
period, has a covernment been handed such a wretched legacy
as -we received in 1975.
Yet iln the last four years we have Come a long way. A sense
of achievement, optimism and faith in our future has been
reborn amongst Australians.
But, this is no time for self-congratulation. Our responsibility
now ~ s more viLtal than ever. The sweeping successes of the
last two elections must not lead us to believe that a Liberal
future is secure and unchallengeable. Our hard-won victories
of the ptwill be hollow,-. if -the~ y lead u, into c -lacenct! in
the future. What we need now is now effort, continuing
co-operation and a commitment to priorities which will benefit
all of us.
If we really value security for our children and our families
in the future; if we understand that the well-being of the
nation rests upon economic stability and growth; if we accept
that, central to true democracy, is the proper functioning
of State Governments, and if we believe that these goals can
only be achieved by putting Liberal principles into work in
Government, then which of us, by our own actions, is prepared
to take a course, to pursue an argument, to make decisions
which will jeopardise these great Liberal objectives and ideals?
The only thing that can damage us is division amongst ourselves.
Make no mistake, the Australian electorate takes a dim view of
political divisiveness. Harmony is an essential ingredient to
political success. The A. L. P. has shown us time and again that
internal political division is political death.
Amongst oureelves we have had some discussions in recent times
about coalition arrangements. Let me say that the criticism
of those arrangements has always come from those who do not
have to be, and have not been part of a coalition.
8
9
I understand completely the frustrations and difficulties
within our State where the Liberal Party governs in its own right.
I condemn as unconscionable the allocation of preferences to
the Labor Party by an anti-Socialist party. I condemn as
unconscionable the use of open tickets by the National Party.
In years past I was a member of the State Executive and I
understand the State's iewpoint completely. But acknowledging
all that it is not just an accident that through almost
thirty years of federal coalition, Ministers' seats have
not been contested by candidates from the coalition partner.
The art of the successful coalition imposes certin obvious
requirements. We are one Government, with one policy, supported
by all members of the coalition.
There is loyalty amongst the Ministry which enshrines the
notion of collective responsibility. Without this, the
Government and the Ministry would fall apart.
At election time we go to the people as a coalition government
with a common policy and purpose. Together, we defend our record
and proclaim our position for the future. What is the position
then, if a member of our party seeks to stand against a Minister
representing our coalition partner?
This would lead to criticism of the Minister, who would be forced
to respond. Let me take it a step further. What do
Mini sterial colleagues do in this position?
Here is a challenger from their own party. Normally one would
expect that they support their own party colleague. But let me
say that Ministers within a government cannot be on conflicting
sides in an election. There would be no trust around the table
> ii ni.; tcer knew that his coalition ar-ncr with Ministerial
support was seeking to defeat him in an election.
There would be no coalition in this instance.
If a Minister from one party starts campaigning to defeat
a Ministerial colleague, the strains placed on the coalition
would be unbearable. In these circumstances Ministers either
have to support. their Ministerial colleague or support their
own party. They cannot do both.
Either way there would be conflict and division. Such a contest
would not be a mere Jocal matter. It would be national news.
It would be an act which defied all the traditions of three
decades of successful coalition government decades of
achievement unparalleled in Australia's political history.
10
It would place at risk not just the future of the Liberal
Party; not just the future of coalition government; but the
future of all Australians; who seek from political leadership
sound and effective government. This is a risk which, I
believe, no member of the Liberal Party, or the National Party
is entitled to take. No individual, no party, is more
important than Australia and its future.
Over the years many great and important issues have come
before this State Council. Aware of its traditions, and in
a spirit of informed debate, council has passed judgement on
matters of regional, state and national importance. It has a
proud record of acting with a sense of responsibility which
is reflected in the success of the Liberal Party in Victoria
for many years. Matters before us today are of genuine national
importance and I urge you in your considerations to follow our
proud traditions.
A Coalition that seeks a sense of unity and stability from the
nation must demonstrate these qualities itself. The challenge
confronting us now is great. Our response as a party must
demonstrate the measure of our greatness. Now is the time for
all of us, in both coalition parties, to galvanise all our
political and physical resources so that the anti-socialist
forces in Australia can lead this nation productively through
the demanding decade ahead.
As we approach this new decade, we should rightly feel some
exhilaration at what it will provide. We are ready for its
challenges. To our abundance of individual and natural
resources we need to add a sense of unity and purpose.
Our victories in the future will only be equal to the discipline
we apply in search of them.
With this in mind, we need in 1980, to work with every sens
of confidence; and commitment; to see that the mental and
spiritual attitudes which underlie our Liberal movement, become
the driving force behind the efforts of all Australians, in the
next decade and beyond. oooOooo---