5 July 1996
I am delighted to be with you tonight to honour the contribution of a great Australian, Sir Thomas Playtord, to the development of our country and of this State of South Australia.
Occasions such as this are important aad uplifting for many reasons, and not least of them is the opportunity they provide to set the historical record straight.
One of the more insidious developments in Australian political life over the past decade or so has been the attempt to re-write Australian history in the service of a partisan political cause.
No-one should be in any doubt that this process has been a systematic and deliberate one. My predecessor as Primo Minister regarded the partisan re-interpretation of Australia's past as central to much of the agenda for the future that he sought to implement It distorted the debate over a range of policy issues including our constitutional form of government and the relevance of our traditional associations with particular countries and regions.
I say that this process of officially attempting to re-write Australian history was an insidious one because it was an abuse of the true purpose of history. It read history backwards, imposing on the past a pattern designed to serve contemporary political needs. It portrayed a partial and selective view of our past as the officially endorsed version of our history. And it sought to stifle voices of dissent from that view with abuse and vitriol rather than reasoned debate.
This process was also an insidious one because it sought to demcan, pillory and tear down many great people of Australia's past who had no opportunity to answer back and all because they stood for principles and priorities that were percieved to be at odds with the agenda of the then national governmcnt. Sir Robert Menzies, of course, was a frequent target of such attacks, but so too were many others who shared his values and priorities.
There is another reason as well why this recent attempted hijacking of our history was insidious. And that is because it set Australian against Australian: it implied that those who shared the officially endorsed view of our past, with all its blinkers and bitter biases, were somehow "better" Australians and more "nationalist" Australians than those who rejected it. It had the effect of re-opening soin divisions in our society that most of us rightly believed had been reconciled long ago.
There is certainly a need for Australians to undurstand their history better. But they don't need to be force-fed by those self-appointed cultural dietitians in our midst whose agenda has more to do with divisive political strategies than respect for the facts of history.
There is no hierarchy of "good" Australians and "lesser" Australians on the basis of what interpretation of our history, and what priorities for our future, they believe in.
There is no purpose served by trying to tear down or demean the achievements of the great men and women of our past simply because they believed in political values, moral standards or policy priorities that are now perceived by some to be dated or unfashionable.
Wc would benefit as a nation if there were a greater awareness of the historical forces that have shaped our development and the scale of thc contributions which individuals, both the illustrious and the nameless, have made.
But we need to understand the past on it own tcrms and not judge those that have gone before us on the basis of out own contemporary standards.
What we do not need is a politically filtered view of our past which holds up as icons only those who believe in a particular political philosophy and which condemns as villains and manipulators those who believed in anything else.
The fact is that the history of our nation is the story of all our people and it is a story for all our people. It is owned by no-one. It is not the story of some general conspiracy or manipulation: it is a history which has its flaws - certainly - but which broadly constitutes a scale of heroic and unique achievement against great odds.
They are achievements to which Australians from all sides of politics and religion, and from every calling and region, have contributed.
We need to understand those contributions and to learn from them. We need to do so, not through rose-tinted glasses, but in a spirit of generosity and openness. That generosity will recognise the special but distinctive contribution of both a Curtin and a Menzies. Although naturally according to our own predilections we will cheer rather louder for some than others.
Above all, we need to put firmly behind us the recent, mean-spirited attempts to promote a divisive, selective and inaccurate version of our history as part of an attempt to promote a partisan political agenda.
THE PLAYFORD LEGACY
It is against that broader background that T am very pleased to be with you tonight to honour the memory of Sir Thomas Playford.
Just as I have said that as a nation we need to know and understand our history belter, so too political parties need to understand and learn from their past not in a way that is demeaning of others but in a way that is constructive and respects the facts.
That is why I welcome the wide range of activities planned during this year, the one hundredth anniversary of Sir Thomas' birth, to recognise not only the scale of what he achieved in the development of this State and our nation but also his broader political legacy in terms of the historical evolution of the liberal/ conservative political tradition in Australia.
Those achievements have been widely documented and in particular in Stewart Cockurn's excellent biography.
In assessing the Playford legacy we should bear in mind the rathcr special character of the Liberal Party of Australia. Almost unique amongst centre right parties in the western world it is the trustee of both the liberal and conservative traditions in our nation.
Those who seek the true soul of our party do it mn iinmcnsc disservice if they try to define it exclusively in terms of either tradition. Over the past 18 months I have often spoken of our Party as a broad church. Few of us arc cither universally liberal or conservative on all issues.
Speaking personally, I could barely quibble with those who might describe me as an economic liberal and one who occasionally verged on social conservatism.
Tom Playford was elected Premier in 1938 as a stop-gap measure when the former Premier, Sir Richard Butler, unsuccessfully stood for the Federal scat of Wakefield. He must be the only slop-gap leader in history who lasted twenty seven years!!
It would be wrong, however, if Tom Playford's place in history was more notable for the length of his tenure in office than for the range and scale of what he actually achieved.
Of course, no-one should under-estimate the achievemont of remaniing a Premier of any State for almost twenty seven consecutive years. After just four active and demanding months in office as Prime Minister, I can only marvel at the sheer endurance qualities demanded for a 27-year stint! And 1 should state here and now that I am not intending to stay in my current office for quite that long Playford survived and prospered in a political sense for so long because he set himself some basic principles that he lived up to far better than most.
He had both great personal courage and an enduring sense of service to his community. Those qualities epitomized themselves when as a twenty-one year old when he joined thc 27th Battalion and served at Gallipoli, France and Flanders. And that same sense of service and couragee underpinned his long decades of political service to to his community.
Playford had absolute standards of honesty, trustworthiness and financial integrity which he alway% maintained. His governments were completely free of corruption and scandal.
Playford was a pragmatist, not an idealogue. Having left school at thirteen, his real education canie through experience. hard work and direct dealing with people. it should come as no surprise, therefore, that throughout his political career, he was straight with the people and attuned to their interests. HeI was focussed on practical outcomes more than processes, and where an agreement was entered into with the people, he insisted that it should be carried out to its fullest intent.
He opposed change for the sake of it. But where the practical case for gradual and incremental change was established, lie became one of its most effective advocates.
Tom Playford loved this State and championed its interests unstintingly. Perhaps somewhat iTrevercatly, but certainly not inaccurately, his personal style could be encapsulated in the following simple rules of thumb which he applied to most propositions:
- if it employed South Australians..... he'd tick it,
- it if promoted the State's industrial development.... he'd pick it;
- if another State was interested.... he'd nick it;
- and if Canberra or anything else got in the way ....he'd kick it!
The Premier's personal qualities and standards of government certainly explain why the Playford era listed so long. But they do not convey the scale of what was achieved during it.
It was an era of unprecedented economic modernisation and growth for this State growth built on private enterprise facilitatad by effective government.
Playford understood the emerging new forces of science and technology and he was determined to harness them to take his State forward.
He attrated industries, both large and small, to this State on an extraordinary scale from shipbuilding to steel, from defence to research from cars to textiles. And part of the reason for that success was the infrastructurc base for industry that Playford provided - infrastructure particularly in terms of transport, energy, water and housing,
Like the political leadcrs of every generation, Tom Playford was a product of his times - of Depression , of World Wars of profound industrial change that transformed Australia in the post-1945 era, and of a view of Australia's place in the world that is very different to what prevails today.
Hc met the challenges that confronted the South Australia of his time in his own way that won him popular support that endured.
Over a Premiership or twenty-seven years, it. is unreal to pretend that there were no challenges that could not have been met better, not problems that could not have been handled more effectively and fairly, nor issues for the future of South Australia that could not have been better anticipated. These are matters for historical interpretation hat should continue to be debated in good faith, as I am sure they will.
But in looking back on the legacy of the Playford era two overriding conclusions emerge.
The first is that the Playford years not only brought great economic reshaping to South Australia that diversified its economic base and provided opportunities for its future development. ' they also established a set of priorities for govcrnmnt that focused
clearly on providing practical benefits to all the people of this State. -and thc fact that
the number or South Australians doubled during the Playford era is tcstimony to its
many successes in that regard.
Sir Robert Menzies was an astute judge of people and set high standards of effectiveness, and ethical conduct in making thosec judgements. It is instructive, therefore. to note Mekiis' verdict an Playford. He wrote that:
"if a Premier is to be measured by what he did for his own community persistently, constructively, successfully, then I would offer the opinion that he was the greatest State Premier in the history of Australia."
The second conclusion is that the achievements of the Playford era should be judged on their own terms and in their own right. They should not be re-interpreted in the light of prevailing circumstances nor judged on the basis of current policy priorities.
The long years of Playford Government should be asscssed in terms of how effectively it met the challenges of its own times, of how responsibly it addressed the concerns of the community which it served, and of how adequately it lived up to its own high standards of honest and effective government. On these counts, I believe that the verdict of history will rightly be kind.
THIRTY YEARS ON FROM THE PLAYFORD ERA
The Playford Goverment ended in 1965. The changes that have overtaken Australian political economic and social life since that time have been fundamental. Many of them have been enriching and liberating. All of them have had an impact in changing the role of governments, in broadening our national economic horizons and in shaping the values by which we live.
I wish tonight to outline what I see as some of those fundamncntal changes in Australian life and to describe the way in which the Coalition Federal Government believes it appropriate to respond to them.
THE PACE AND SCOPE OF CHANGE
Pcrhaps the most persuasive of all recent changes in Australian society has been the consequences of the processes of globalisation.
The Cold War's "balance of terror" has been replaced by new and more peaceful forms of international competition and co-operation.
The ongoing revolution in information technologies, transport and communications is inexorably creating genuinely global markets for goods, services and capital. Only the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution itself over 200 years ago compare in relative significance with the changes that arc now flowing from the processes of globalisation.
For Australia, these changes are affecting our patterns of trade, investment and employment. They are maiking the international competitiveness of our business enterprises a necessity rather than an option. They arc creating new challenges and opportunities in our relations with the world's most dynamnic economic region, the Asia-Pacific. And together with other internationalising influences, such as our direct people-to-people links with many countries around the world and our rapidly expanding tourism market, they are making for a more open, creative and diverse Australian society.
Tihe impact of globalisation is coalescing with a rangc of other factors to change Australia in fundamental ways.
The nature of our Federal system of government has changed significantly over recent years. And it is set to change further in the years ahead as area of overlapping Commonwealth and State jurisdiction are addressed and as practical improvements in service delivery in areas such as housing, health and family services are achieved.
The role of the media in political life has become more pervasive and a force to be reckoned with in its own right.
The roles of men and women, and thc patterns of work within families, have been transformed over recent decades.
The nature of work itself and the structure of careers arc changng, with an increasing likelihood that more and more Austalians will pursue a range of different employment challenges over the course of their working lives. At thc samei time, these realities are creating their own pressures, with those who arc cxpcriencing a rising standard of living also sensing a lower quality of life through the pace and demands of work.
Our population is ageing a~ fact which is creating its own financial pressures find its own demand for more creative opportunities for older Australians.
At a different level, there is now among Australians what I believe to be a broad-based consciousness about, and an enduring commitment to protect, our unique and fragile natural environment.
There is also, I believe, a strong and broadly-based national commitment to explore new ways of achieving practical and significant improvements in Aboriginal health, employment, education and housing.
Not all recent change, however, in Australian society has been positive.
There is an eroding sense of egalitarianism and middle classness felt by many Australians as a result of persistent high unemployment, particularly among young Australians and rising levels of family breakdown over the past decade.
There has been a marginalization of politics in the estimation of many Australians over recent years. Tis reflects a declining regard for Parliament and Politicians. It also reflects a widely-held perception of politics as the special preserve of insiders as well as what 1 have described for some time as the dctriballsofion of traditional political constituencies in Australia.
There is a perception, and particularly among many directly involved in it, that the role of modern government is necessarily becoming more and more complex. In my view, however, the more accurate assessment would be that modern government is being maiht more complex, and unnecessarily so.
There seems to be a focus on form and process at the expense of toutcoines for people.
The constant challenge is to ensure that detailed institutional and bureaucratic requirements do not prevent the achievement of practical outcomes that address the real needs of the community. A proper balance between them priorities is fundamental for effective government.
There is what I believe to be a growing and disproportionate influence of single-issue political interest groups, each pursuing their own quite legitimate purposes but often in a way that is divorced fro~ m any wider concept of the common good.
As a result.. we have witnessed over recent year a declining sense of community as a nation and an accompanying rist of sub-groups. A political NIMBY ('not-in-my-back-yard') syndrome seem to be spreading. In current circumstances, for example, many interest groups support the Governments commitment to reduce thec budget deficit hut most go on to argue why the particular interests they represent should be quarantined from such corrective action.
More generally, wc are also witnessing what I see as the disturbing development of a negativist political culture in Australia with its focus On demeaning institutions and pulling down personalities instead of contributing constructively to the debate on how we best meet the national challenges we face.
A VISION FOR GOVERNMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE CHANGES
The changes I have referred to have made Australia a quite different country in some important respects, with a quite different set of national challenges, to the one in
which Tom Playford governed.
In defining a vision for national government to respond creatively to thcse changes and to meet these contemporary challenges, it is as important to govern by a consistent set of values and priorities as it is to implement an appropriate mix of policies.
Back on Election night, on the second of March this year, I emphasised two of the guiding principles for the new Coalition Government.
I committed the Government to govern for all Australians. The right to govern is always an ongoing gift from the people, and there is an accompanying responsibility for any government to unite rather than to divide thc community.
I also resolved to be true to the values, priorities and policies we had spelt out in the lead-up to, and during, the Election campaign. I made it clear on Election night that 'we have not been elected to be just a pale imitation or the Government that we have replaced".
Those two principles have guided us as a Government since Election day, and they will continue to guide us into the future.
We are a Government with clearly stated values and priorities which reflect those of the great mainstream of Australian society.
We arc not a Government beholden to political correctness but one committed to broad community values and practical outcomes on both economic and social issues.
We are not a Government of economic rationalism in the popular sense of that term. We are a Government of economic common sense. We seek greater economic efficiency, more responsible budgets and more effective markets not as ends in themselves, but as means for achieving rising living standards, expanding employment opportunities and an effective safety net.
We are not a Government of ideology. We are a Government of ideas and ideals. And, in responding to the scale of social, economic and political change I have outlined, it will be the ideal; that motivate us and the ideals to which we aspire, rather than miy pursuit of narrow ideology, that will take us forward.
We are however a government with some fixed goals and strong commitments.
In the economic area, for example, it would a great mistake for anyone to undetestimate the strength of my commitment to achieving labour market reform and a profound enhancement of the conditions in which small business operates in Australia.
+
Freeing Australia's arthritic labour markets is indispensable to securing stronger growth, greater competitiveness and over time an improvement in Australia's current account deficit.
We seek labour market reform because it will provide greater freedom for individuals and more rewarding outcomes for both employers and employees.
It is the absolute cornerstone of the reform plan that the Coalition has for the Australian economy. Without it our prospects will remain dented and future economic growth needlessly enfeebled.
Likewise, on the social horizon we are steadfastin one determination to strengthen the role and place of the family unit within society.
This goal will bc the axis around which policies in many area-. such as taxation, industrial relations and social welfare will rotate.
THE IDEAS THAT MOTIVATE
Ideas are not political ends in themselves but the basis for developing practical policies that work for the common good.
The ideas which lie at the centre of thc Federal Government's policymaking priorities relate directly to the concerns and aspirations of the great Australian mainstream.
* At the core of the ideas that motivate us is our clear intention to restore trust and confidence between the Australian community and the national government.
We made a clear-cut set of core promises to the Australian people at the last Election - promises relating to family tax and health care, industrial relations, small business. unemployment ( particularly among out young people), the concerns of older Australians, and a range of other important policy areas.
Let me reaffirm what has always been our position that these promises will be fulfilled and that these commitments will be honoured.
On coming to government, of course, we inherited a serious fiscal deterioration that was dishonestly concealed by Labor in the campaign and that reflected its gross incompetence and negligence.
We are committed to cleaning up Labor's fiscal mess. We art committed to repairing Australia's savings and to reining in the blow-out in government cxpenditure. We are acting to reduce the Budget deficit because it is the responsible and necessary thing to do. It is not easy but it is right, and we will do so fairly and justly.
We are not pursuing this course for any reasons of ideological purity or grand economic theory. We are pursuing it because of the practical outcomes it will deliver. It is an investment in our country's future, opening up for us the possibility of generating higher rates of growth in incomes and an increasing number of jobs without putting pressure on the current account and interest rates.
I should also reaffirm another point I have made consistently since the "Beazley black hole" was revealed after we came to office. And that is that we art not going to let Labor's fiscal irresponsibility force us into dishonouring the key Election promises we made to the Australian people.
Those promises were made to be honoured and, regardless of the changed circumstances which Labor's negligence has created, they will be honoured.
What we are seeking now in the Senate is partisan obstructionism for its own sake from the Democrats. They are threatening key elements of the Coalition's reform package, such as industrial relations reform, the Natural Heritage Trust and the one-third privatisation of Teistra on all of which our mandate from the Australian people is direct and specific.
The great frc in the current situation is that the obstructionism is coming from a minority Party that parades itself as committed to keeping politicans honest.
In presenting our legislation on these key issues to the Parliament, we arc being honest and keeping faith with the commitments we undertook at the Election. The recent actions of the Democrats would suggest that their central preoccupation is not with honesty but with blind partisanship.
The Australian people elected our Government with an overwhelming majority to implement the changes to which we committed ourselves at the Election. In denying the people those changes, the Democrats need to know that they arc playing for very high stakes indeed.
In addition to restoring a relationship of trust between Australians and their national government, another of the ideas which motivate us is to give practical policy effect to our belief that it is individuals who matter more than governments, bureaucracies and vested interests.
That is why the Government is committed to making choice for individuals the golden thread running through all our policy initiatives: choice in the labour market, choice to join or not to join a trade union, choice in education, choice in telecommunications, choice in retirement income, and choice in a whole range of other policy areas.
It is why we are committed, in this period of rapid change, to strengthen the family unit which has proved itself over time as the source of the most effective emotional support for individuals and as thc best social welfare system that any society has ever devised.
Our policy priorities are also motivated by a commitment to achieve a practical balance between thc limits of government and the limits of markets.
We believe in getting government, not out of people's lives, but off their backs.
That is why we are committed as a Government to in maximising individual decision making, promoting private enterprise and limiting the power of the State ovcr its citizens. We will continue to pursue those goals through guaranteeing the separation of powers, through greater choice, diversity and competition in the provision of goods and services, and through sensibly and sensitively limiting the claims that are made on the State.
Tn recognising thc proper limits, of government, we also recognise the practical limits of markets. That is why we do not belicve in complete laissez-f'aire government. It is why we do not see markets as an end in themselves. We do, however, see markets as delivering superior outcomes to state determined allocations. Governments have a proper and necessary role to guarantee a fair safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, require special assistance. Governments also have a responsibility to encourage self-sufficiency among those who are capable of it.
The safety net guarantee, however, is critical if individuals are to have the opportunity to develop their full potential, Without such a guarantee, the liberal concepts of a free society and equality of opportunity lose their meaning.
* We are also motivated by a commitment to meet the challenges of globalisation while continuing to assure thc Australian birthright of a fair go for all.
That mcans achieving progress in the reform area where Labor failed so dramatically reforms such as fiscal repair, labour market freeedom, micro econonomic reform a more internationally competitive infrastructure and financial system higher productivity and less foreign debt. They = r all reforms which arc necessary if Australia is to harness the process of globalisation for its own advantage. And they are all reform-. which are necessary to ensure that Australia participates fully in the dynamic economic growth of the Asia-Pacific region.
S
THE IDEALS TO WHICH WE ASPIRE
In addition to the Ideas for enhancing choice and freedom that motivate our policy making priorities, we are also a Government with a clear set of ideals to which we aspire and from which we will not be diverted.
* We will continue to meet the true tests of national leadership.
That is why we will continue to be straight and direct with the people on major national issues (such as gun control, the Budget deficit and the imbalance in our immigration programme), and on our strategy to address them.
It is why we will continue to set a clear course for the future based on consistent values and priorities in areas such as fiscal strategy, job growth, infrastructure reform, environmental protection and resource development.
And it is why we will continue to be committcd to building a sense of common national purpose rathcr than papering together an amalgamation of special interests.
* We will not be swept off-course from our commitment to pursue economic reform policies aimed at freeing up the labour market, building savings and investment, creating jobs, developing export and import-competing industries, and boosting productivity and living standards.
Wc will remain rock solid in our commitment to strengthen the decentralised networks of family, workplaces and communities as more effective guarantors of choice and freedom than the centralisation of political power.
That is why wc will be acting to reduce the economic pressures on low and middle income families, and especially those with dependent children (through tax, health care and other reforms),
It is why we are moving to implement our enterprise-based workplace reforms.
And it is why we will continue to support the great voluntary associations that are so central to the strength of local communities.
We will remain unshakeable in our resolve to reward hard work. initiative and "get up and go".
That is why we regard our policy agenda to restore small businesses as the great generators of jobs, national wealth and individual opportunity as central to our whole purpose in government.
And we will remain absolutely committed to interacting more extensively and cooperatively with the countries of our region at the same time as we continue to develop our important and longstanding relationships with traditional friends.
W
e will do so confident of who we are and what we stand for, and confident of the important regional contribution we can make as a democracy, as an advanced and innovative economy and as a force for security and stability.
CONCLUSION
The values and priorities we have set for our Government are clear. They are relevant to the forces of both change and continuity in our society. They are also relevant to the challenges we face as a nation into the next century.
We aim to pursue those values and priorities with the same consistency, the same commitment and the same community-mindedness with which the great leaders of the Liberal tradition in Australia, such as Tom Playford, pursued the values and priorities which they judged to be right for their own time.
Few political leaders acquire the status of a institution in their own lifetime. Tom Playford was one such leader. We have much to learn from the Playford era and from the integrity of the leader who presided over it. I am pleased to have been able to play some part in honouring his memory tonight.