Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Due to my age and the longevity of my political involvement, I am indisputably the only person in this parliament who was at the 1969 and 1972 victory functions at Gough Whitlam's home. I want to correct an earlier contribution regarding that, because the second 1972 event certainly was at his home. He had previously received the results at the Sunnybank motel, room 7, and then walked to the function that night.

In 2010, after the strange, brief disappearance and then revival of the seat of Reid, and in a checkmate of political faction leaders and union honchos, I found myself the member for Werriwa. I soon found two very distinct aspects of that electorate. The first is a sense of difference, a belief that the Macarthur region was distinct. If you go to any fundraiser in that electorate they always promise people that all the money will stay in the region. That is a hangover from the rural nature of Campbelltown and its environs.

I also found that not only Labor loyalists but also the general electorate had a belief that it was a great thing they lived in the electorate of Gough Whitlam. Again, in 2013, when the Liberal Party plastered the electorate with money, and pundits in both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party thought that I would lose the seat, I had newspaper commentary which constantly stressed that the iconic seat of Reid, the old seat of Gough Whitlam, would be lost to the Labor Party. So he is very much centrally involved in the history of that electorate.

I had the opportunity of observing another aspect of his political life. My father shared with him state and federal responsibilities for significant periods. They went through the obvious requirements of the electorate—attending school fetes, balls and dances and other events of the burgeoning Maltese, Italian and German communities. There were also functions at the nascent RSLs and bowling clubs. On many occasions he dropped by our house. He would take off his shoes and have a few drinks with my parents. My mother being raised in the Riverina was no mean cook, and on many occasions she commented on Gough's fondness for the tooth—a proclivity for cakes et cetera.

I want to stress that from the moment of the 1949 by-election—I have an advertisement of it here provided by Richard James Ford for a meeting at Liverpool Town Hall on 25 November—Gough Whitlam was a person who very much involved himself in the electorate, with the local education of the children and sporting and training events. He was a person who actually treated very seriously his civic responsibilities and his engagement with the local electorate. It is not only a matter of what he accomplished for this country but also the fact that he was very much a participant in local democracy within the electorate. It was, as I say, the reason that we now see such a fondness for him within that electorate.

He is respected for many breathtaking innovations during that period, and it is an important point to bear in mind that those changes still affect us today. Both sides of politics have talked about the NDIS and, hopefully, we will now see action in regard to Australia's disabled. A person called Gough Whitlam was, 40 years ago, calling in the wilderness for a national compensation scheme. In the last few months, Australia has been very proud to make its opinions known on matters as diverse as ISIS and the shooting down of the plane in Ukraine and also to make its presence felt on the Security Council. This accomplishment is very much related to a person who, in contrast to many other prime ministers, knew that there were capital cities in this world beyond Washington, Wellington, Tokyo and London. He had an incredible knowledge of the world, its diversity, and a belief that rather than being the arse end of the earth this country through is pioneering accomplishments, through its remoteness and through its independent need to survive the Second World War et cetera did have something to present. The fact that we can now see ourselves on the Security Council, that we can have a role independent to some degree of the United States—at least a degree greater than it was previously—owes much to him.

In regard to university education, a matter of controversy these days, I want to quote some figures to show how bad things are in the United States, which some people in this country would like us to emulate. Christopher Benfey in the New York Review of Books last week revealed that 100 United States schools, representing 0.3 per cent of the United States education system, were able to provide 22 per cent of the entrants to Princeton, Yale and Harvard. This is the kind of outcome that Gough Whitlam vigorously opposed. We know that he abolished university fees, introduced student income support, moved the federal sphere very strongly into tertiary education and changed many other aspects of the policy.

Another issue on the agenda today that has some connection with him is Gonski. One of the issues back in his political career was the question of state aid for schools. I have a letter here from Brother Kelvin Canavan, who was a long-term activist on this issue. He talks about Whitlam at state and other rallies in 1969. He notes:

His message was always the same. Australia must increase spending on education and both government and Catholic schools should be funded according to need. Gough had a very clear view that the Commonwealth must make "a comprehensive and continuous financial commitment to schools, as it has to universities."

A few years ago, I located a sound recording—of the Town Hall speeches. I sent a copy to Gough who phoned me the next day with his reminiscences of the campaign by Catholics for financial assistance their schools.

…   …   …

He took considerable pride in the role he played in ensuring that all students had access to well-funded schools.

On a number of occasions, he came back to the 1969 rallies. He lamented the passing of public meetings that provided a stage for a gifted orator. "Television is a poor substitute for the Town Hall," he said.

He recognised another area where Whitlam's views are still relevant today. His belief that there needs to an emphasis on areas of need for those regions that are deprived so that people have access to university and an equal education in primary and secondary schools.

In my association with people, the most common reference to Whitlam is in connection with education. The number of people who say that they personally would not have gone to university, had the livelihood that they have, brought up their family in the way that they have or had the opportunity to broaden their knowledge without Whitlam's reforms in education is the most evident of those changes.

We also have—and many people have raised this—the recognition of China. It is interesting that in the last fortnight that Jimmy Carter—who only accomplished US recognition of China in 1978 and in the process was vigorously attacked by Barry Goldwater—was treated very badly in China. It was, as I say, six years after Australia that the United States normalised responsibilities. It was a breathtaking initiative by an independent country—a country asserting its place in the world.

Finally, there was the war in Indochina and the decision by Labor to stop this lottery and to give people the opportunity to avoid involvement in this conflict which had long been opposed far more vigorously even than by Gough by other elements in the Labor Party over the previous decade.

I salute Gough and Margaret's contribution to Australian politicly life; and to his family, I express my own, my electorate's and my family's condolences.

See this speech in context