Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to join my colleagues and express my sincerest condolences on the death of Edward Gough Whitlam, the 21st Prime Minister of Australia. Gough Whitlam was a political titan, a crash-or-crash-through politician, a leader of conviction. If we were to ask ourselves the eternal question, 'Does history make people, or do people make history?' I dare say Gough would be among the very few in the latter category.

And yet his character was forged by history and his times. Though from a comfortable background, he was born during World War I, in his teens during the Great Depression, a bomber navigator in his 20s, and an MP and father in his 30s. He was among, indeed from, the great generation. Before even emerging upon the national stage, he had already seen human misery on a grand scale, faced death many times and even contemplated the existential threat to modern democracy throughout the world. With this experience, is it any wonder that he was a man in a hurry, with an ambition that was so grand, matched by a determination so fierce? It culminated on 13 November 1972 at Labor's campaign launch. 'Men and women of Australia,' he proclaimed, at once changing the political lexicon of his times. He went on to say:

The decision we will make for our country on 2 December is a choice between … the habits and fears of the past, and the demands and opportunities of the future. There are moments in history when the whole fate and future of nations can be decided by a single decision. For Australia, this is such a time.

Such rhetoric rarely rings with such truth.

After 23 years in exile, caused as much by division and defection than by anything the conservatives did, the Labor Party, led by this magnificent leader, was not there to govern for governing's sake. In no particular order, the Whitlam government ended conscription, released conscientious objectors from our jails, introduced universal health care, created no-fault divorce, created the Family Court of Australia, reduced tariffs, abolished appeals to the Privy Council, abolished prohibitive university fees, cut the voting age to 18 years, funded our fledgling film industry, enacted Aboriginal land rights and the Racial Discrimination Act, recognised China, ended our involvement in the Vietnam War, repealed the death penalty, instituted legal aid, abolished knights and dames—which a future Labor government will do again—ratified the World Heritage convention, removed sales tax on the pill, reopened the equal pay case, embedded the Australia Council for the Arts, paid single mothers a pension, established the Australian Law Reform Commission, sung a new national anthem and so much more. His was a government not for the faint-hearted but for the big-hearted and the high-minded.

In the brief time I have left, I also feel compelled to address the charge of economic illiteracy or indifference. There were flaws with this government, without a doubt; there were mistakes and scandals. But let us not conclude that the absurdity of dealing with Khemlani or the titillation of Morosi and Cairns's relationship has anything to do with the economic policy record of the Whitlam era. That was trivia. That was ephemera. That was irrelevant. That sold newspapers, but it did not tell of the 1970s economic policy or experiences.

You do not judge an economic record according to those who seek to justify Whitlam's dismissal or conservative politicians or even Labor's successors. You judge the economy on how the economy was, not on how vested interests said it was. You judge it on the facts. You judge it on the results. By the early 1970s, a consensus of macroeconomists formed regarding inflation and unemployment. It was contended—and, as I say, it was a universally held view—that they are inversely related. When one goes up, the other goes down. That orthodoxy of economic policy, however, did not apply to the oil price shocks of the 1970s and virtually no economist or government anticipated such a shock happening. The shocks increased both inflation and unemployment simultaneously—not a shock unique to Australia but a global phenomenon. No-one had any good ideas on what to do to fix it.

Consider inflation between 1972 and 1975 in a series of countries. Inflation in the G7 countries increased from 4.5 per cent to 11 per cent; in Europe it increased from seven per cent to 14 per cent; in the United States it increased from three per cent to nine per cent; the United Kingdom's inflation increase was from seven per cent to 24 per cent; in Australia it went from six per cent to 15 per cent, well within the median range of inflation increases at the time. Unemployment all over, as in Australia, doubled. As for growth, Australia did relatively well, falling from 2.6 per cent in 1972 to one per cent in 1974, and by 1975 it was back to 2.6 per cent. Therefore, it is not right to say that somehow the Whitlam government's record was anything other than consistent with what was happening throughout the world as a result of the oil shocks of the seventies.

Stagflation was not solved by other countries, with the exception of Scandinavian countries at the time, and not by the political beneficiaries of Whitlam's sacking and subsequent election loss—and not by the Thatcher and Fraser governments that implemented draconian contractionary fiscal and monetary policy. Let's remember: Treasurer Howard left the Hawke and Keating governments with 11 per cent inflation and 10 per cent unemployment to deal with—and, with the trade union movement partners in an Accord, deal with it they did. So let me repeat the simple clear message which the actual microeconomic outcomes in the Whitlam years reveal. Economic policy was conducted about as well—or as badly, if you like—as in every other country dealing with the oil shocks.

On a personal note, his impact upon me and indeed upon my Irish migrant parents was immense. He was a man of the future, an advocate for independence and a tireless supporter for equal opportunity. His election and achievements made it much more likely for factory workers' kids like me and others that I knew not only to aspire to university but also to go to university. Indeed, I am one of those beneficiaries, to be the first in my family to go to universities along with my siblings, He made it clear that serving the public was a noble profession and something that we should all think about, and we should all thank him in this place.

His tragic, unconstitutional tearing down as our Prime Minister turned many Labor voting families, like mine, into lifelong Labor Party members and activists. Vale Edward Gough Whitlam.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context