Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Queensland political issues speech to Labor in politics convention

Download PDFDownload PDF

Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party

to the Labor-in-Politics Convention

Brisbane, 19 January 1977

A greater challenge faces the party in Queensland

than in any other State; In purely electoral terms the task is

two-fold: to restore a State Labor Government and to redress * ■ , "

the imbalance of federal representation. In addition to that -one might almost say as a condition for that - we need to rebuild

and revitalise the party organisation itself. This will not be ' ·

done quickly or easily, but it must be done, and done without .

delay. Now: is the time to start. There is no point in pretending

that the state of the Labor Party in Queensland - its organisation,

its morale, its numbers, its effectiveness - has been anything but

parlous. It is. enough to remind you, not in any hectoring or

carping spirit, that it is 14 years since we had a majority of

federal members in Queensland, 20 years since we had a State

Labor Government and years since Labor, had a majority of .

Queensland senators.


I' am not here, and I am not entitled, to point the finger

at individuals of particular colleagues. Nothing could be further

from my mind. There are excellent men and women in the Queensland

branch; in Tom Burns we have a young and forceful leader;

in Bill Hayden, a gifted and dedicated parliamentarian, the

author of a great Labor Budget, and a respected national figure.

These are the men who will help lead Labor back.

. . ./2


Nor should we forget that our share of the popular vote

.remains fundamentally strong. One needs to be cautious

about polls, but the signs point to a marked recovery in

Labor's support in Queensland during the past 12 months.

Not spectacular, by no means sufficient; but enough to

show that recovery is possible. 1 mention these things, not

to make light of the challenge before Us, but to remind

us that Labor's·return to strength in this State is not a

pipedream or a superhuman task. It is a practical objective.

It is something we can accomplish with greater effort, with

goodwill, with unity, and above all with sound policies relevant

to the needs of the Queensland people.

It is too easily said that Queensland is a write-off for

Labor. .1 do not believe it; I never have. I have the happiest

memories of the campaigns I fought in this State, first in the

federal elections in 19^1, later in individual seats like Dawson

and Capricornia. They were great Labor campaigns because they

proved that a party that shows its concern for local issues and

local people - a party that takes the trouble to understand :

Queensland's needs and develop appropriate policies - can turn

the tide of public support. We did it in 19&1 and in 1967;

we can do it in '77 and 178. The great temptation for the party,

with its present difficulties in Queensland, is to come up with

silly theories about the nature of politics and the Queensland

people» Whenever things go badly there is a natural tendency to

louk for far-fetched answers ar^d blame the people instead of

ourselves. I don't think we need go beyond the obvious for an

explanation of our troubles: the party has been run-down and

defeatist, our policies have been too little explained and too

little understood.

• · ./3


In particular we must reject the idea that Queenslanders

are somehow different from other Australians. It is not the , I

people who are different; it is the issues, the problems, the

industries, the electoral boundaries; above all the'character

and methods of the Queensland Government. Pathetic and discredited

as the Queensland Government is, we should fl6t underestimate its

power to do harm. There is no doubt in my mind that the Bjelke-

Petersen Government has injected a strain of bitterness, even

hatred into the body of Australian politics that has made our

task in Queensland vastly more difficult. I d on’t want to say

too much about Mr Bjelke-Petersen and his gang because they are

not my main concern; Tom Burns can handle them well. But let

me say this: the damage done to democracy, to political decency

and to Australia's international reputation by the National-Country

Party Government Of this State is not just the concern of the

Labor Party but of all democratic parties. The Liberals know

this as well as we do. Two weeks ago the Federal president of

the Young Liberals had this to say about the Bjellce'-Petersen

Government, the Government that clings to office with 28 per cent

of the popular vote, the Government maintained in power by the :

most outrageous gerrymander in Australia's history:

" . Here we have a pack of cronies who are prepared

' to destroy police reports and then lie about it,

- ■who are prepared to turn the police into a political

tool, and to see the workers in trade unions not as

L people, but as potential victims to be used for the

.•purpose of political confrontations« But this is

not the tragedy - the tragedy is that he only manages

to get away with this because the Liberal Party of

Queensland willingly and knowingly connives to

sustain this iniquity.

. . ./4


Strong words from a Liberal spokesman - and how true they are.' .

The Bjelke-Petersen Government is on the way out.

The Queensland people have seen through this rancid and squalid

administration - just as Gordon Chalk saw through it and got

out, just as Ray Whitrod saw through it and was pushed out.

But let us not delude ourselves that dissatisfaction with

Mr.. Bjelke-Petersen is enough to put Labor b a c k , any more

than dissatisfaction with the Fraser Government will put us

back in the national Parliament. We must put our own house

in order first. A reformed and invigorated party in Queensland

must be the first step to a Labor Government in Brisbane and a

new Labor Government in Canberra. I do not say that without

Queensland we cannot return a federal Labor Government:

I do say that with substantial gains in Queensland in 1978 the

return of a federal Labor Government is assured. That is the

prospect before us, and each day it becomes more feasible and

more likely. ■ -

Other States have met the challenge of internal party .

reform. Queensland must meet that challenge now. The changes ‘ ·

that were brought about in the party in Victoria and .to a lesser

extent in New South Wales - and last year in Tasmania - prepared

the ground for electoral progress in those States. Labor's

gieat federal gains 'in Victoria and the election of a Labor

Government in New South Wales were the result of new policies, new

organisations and new faces in the State branches. They were

paxu-ful. and difficult changes, especially in Victoria, because at the

heart of them lay deep ideological conflicts, profound and bitter

disagreements on policies, on issues, on personalities. The

great difference between Victoria in 1970 and Queensland in 1977

is that here there are no fundamental or ideological divisions of /


the kind that split Labor in Victoria and Labor in Queensland .

in 1957· The party in Queensland today is in a greater state

of flux and. change than at any time in the past 20 years. We have

the opportunity to make lasting and significant reforms on a

basis of unity and goodwill. The orib consolation I always

draw from the upheavals of November and December 1975 is that

through all the trauma and crisis of that time, our party never

once lost its nerve or sacrificed its unity. Every other crisis

in Labor's history - 1916, 1931» 1955 - split the party and the

scars took a generation to heal. The crisis of 1975 left us

bloody but unbowed, beaten but united; if anything, with our

resolve strengthened and our sense of purpose sharpened for the

fight to come.

I want to deal with some particular federal issues

in Queensland because they point up clearly the differences

between the Liberals and the Labor Party in both the State

and federal parliaments. They also help us to define the particular

nature of politics in this State. Broadly, they are all concerned

with questions of resources and development. Queenslanders are

rightly proud of their natural resources., Any party which seeks

votes in Queensland must have clear and beneficial policies on

the·-.dcsseXopaent and marketing of the great natural riches of Ji— ' . ■ ■

the S „ Labor has always put this question <ρ.ΐ the forefront

of its thinking; it was Labor!s policies on northern· development,

on mining, on exploration, on growth centres, on shipping and

transport - all questions at the heart of Queensland's progress -

that won Us votes and seats in the sixties and early seventies.

Voters can see more clearly today not only what Government

can do for people but what they cannot do. Mr. Bjelke-Petersen and

his friends in Canberra convinced thousands of Queenslanders that Labo

was shomehow responsible for the depressed state of the beef industry.

. ’ , / z -


The truth is the industry has been in a worse condition under the.

Fraser Government than it was before. For all the lip service '

conservaties. pay to primary producers, the Liberals and the

Country Party have done almost nothing to help the rural community

in Queensland or anywhere else - beyond restoring the superphosphate

bountry for wealthy graziers like Mr Fraser. Australians now know

that when world markets are depressed there is little that a

government can do for an industry without grossly distorting the

domestic economy .with exorbitant subsidies and other forms of

protection or artificial support; What Governments can do is help

individuals. That is Labor's approach. ■ I,t was ou r . roach in

government. Local employment schemes , jda r e t m j , - - , j my schemes,

assistance to local government bodiu-s, a us i stance icn* isolated

children - all these measures helped the rural comin.ri /, and

most of them have been scrapped or cur tad led by Mr ihu v .

X m helping the primary producer Labor Vv, ve first

priori \y to (-he, search, for new tnarkn c·-·, to .better r t a t i on

systems, fo hsef roads,' to new national highways, / b · . re search into

animal h u s u n d r y and disease. Wherever new markets r jjld be found

overseas we found them - and if this meant- a trip abroad by me or;

Rex Patterson or one of our colleagues we made it.' We should be

reminding the Queensland people that tilt? Labor Government secured

vastly higher prices for their coal; the benefits now flowing

to thi.s State from renegotiated export contracts were largely due

to a federal Labor Government. The future of Queensland's coal

industry never looked brighter than it did under a Labor Government.

Exports were at a record level in volume and price.



By securing higher prices for Queensland coal in Japan and / .

other markets the Labor Government has added hundreds of millions

of dollars a year to Queensland's export income. In the case

of Northern iron ore, the value of exports to all markets more

than doubled under the Labor Government. _And what we did for

coal and iron ore we did for sugar. Rex Patterson, who will

return to Canberra next elections as the member for Dawson, made

long-term trade agreements for Queensland sugar with Japan,

China, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and many countries of Europe.

When Labor left office we left behind a secure and stable sugar

industry, with expanding prospects for overseas sales, and growing

and prosperous mineral export industries in this State.

It is not my purpose to give a resume of Labor's

achievements. I do want to point out where the concerns of a

future Labor Government will.lie, and will always lie. Editorialists

and other benevolent critics are fond of telling us that Labor

must abandon its old policies and ones. We are never

told which policies are suppdsed to be discredited - Medibank,

education, national highways, social security, northern development?

Beyond question Labor must refine and develop its policies, but

ihe-Mf. be no going back on our basic commitment to the security

h'iil ‘ "^1 Care of our people and the development of our national

re?, ου rues One never hears of any advice to the Liberals to

develop policies; presumably their policies are infallible

and table. When conserva tives tell us to come up with new

policies they mean policies, that don't involve public spending

or investment by the community. What divides the parties in ;

Australia is not their commitment or otherwise to public spending

but their priorities in determining where spending should go.

. . . / 8


Certainly Labor's programs cost money and will continue to cost I , '

money: but many of them cost less than the handouts and

concessions and incentives which the Liberals lavish on sectional

interests and overseas mining companies. The real question is

how the public's money should be spent. The Fraser Government

in its last Budget provided more for superphosphate.bounties, tax

concessions and incentives for overseas mining companies and

.multinationals than it saved on Aborigines, sewerage, urban transport

and growth centres combined.

Take our policies on transport. Clearly transport is

crucial to Queensland's growth and development. It will only be

improved and extended by large-scale public investment. Is this

policy to be discarded? Previous Liberal Governments in Canberra -

and the Fraser Government as well - have shirked one of the great

essential development projects needed in Queensland - a national

highway linking the coastal cities with Brisbane and the southern

States. No State Government has the power or the resources to

construct such a system alone. No conservative Federal Government

has ever cared enough to do it - even though they had the necessary

constitutional powers. A Labor Government was ready to use those

povers and a future Labor' Government will get on with the job. In

19751 despite Opposition obstruction, we passed legislation to

provide $1,126 million for a national roads program over a three-year

period. We gave the go-ahead for a high-grade, all-weather highway

linking Cairns with Brisbane, and eventually with Sydney and

Melbourne. Our proposed outlay on national highways over three

years was one-tenth the amount the Fraser Government is allocating

for defence over a five-year period - and there could be no more

important project for the nation's defence than a first-class

national road system. In addition, Labor drew up plans to help

. . . /9


build the Landsborough Highway from Mt Isa to Brisbane as

a full-scale all-weather road. Does anyone say that project

should not go ahead? We set aside $24 million for northern

beef roads in Queensland over a three-year period. All these

projects are essential to Queensland, essential to the “growth

of her rural industries, and the future prosperity of Australia.

They are continuing high-priority projects for a future Labor .

Government. '

In all such areas the Fraser Government has been cutting

back. It has been forced to abdicate more and more of its

responsibilities as a national government because of its wholly

misguided obsession with the federal deficit. It has reached

the point where Mr Fraser and his Cabinet see any axing of a

government project - however worthwhile - as a virtu'e in itself.

Its preoccupation with the deficit - though it has been anything

but successful in keeping the deficit down - has been the one fixed

and constant theme in the Government's erratic economic policy.

The Fraser Government is now the only federal government among . ' · 1 *

developed western countries which is actually cutting back on

federal programs to deal with economic problems. I shall have more

to se.-- on the Government's economic policies Iter, The point I make

now ic this: the Frase'r Government' s policies are damaging arid

rct.·. f\h i uy the nation' s development « its road programs, its

railways, ‘its housing, its growth centres, its cities and towns.

I make it clear that the Opposition does not advocate unlimited

public spending or an unlimited deficit in our present economic

circumstances; we never have. Bill Hayden's Budget did not

increase the rate of growth of public spending; it sharply reduced i

. . . /10

1 0 .

But the severe cuts in the public sector under this Government - i . ·

a drop of 8 per cent in real budget outlays over the first 18

months of this Government - go far beyond the normal requirements

of budgetary restraint. They are falling heavily on the needs ·

of an expanding and developing state such as Queensland. They are

causing unemployment; they are restricting growth and jobs and

productivity; they are stunting plans for the State.* s development.

. Rather thari develop the nation themselves, the Fraser

Government and the BjSlke-Petersen Government want overseas

interests and multinationals to do the job for us. No concession,

no handout is too generous for the overseas investors and foreign

companies the Government is determined to attract. The economic

recovery which the Fraser Government has stifled is now to be

entrusted to foreign investors and speculators. I make it clear

that Labor has never spurned worthwhile foreign investment in our

industries or mineral resources. The next Labor Government will

continue to welcome such investment.; We shall insist, that .

Such investment is beneficial to Australia and that Australians

have a reasonable equity in the projects financed by foreign capital.

My Government ended the open-door, anything-goes approach to foreign

i nie'e^tme at .in Australia. We re solved that there would be no further ' O

.s^l"! -gul of Australian, industries and natural resources under Labor

cits Lhe-S was under successive Liberal governments. Our investment.

. · . guidelines, published in September 1975» were accepted as a reasonable

and responsible code foh foreign investment; they have not been

substantially altered by our successors.

So when we look at political issues in Queensland the

argument often comes down to this: how to balance the development

. . ' · .-./I!


of the State's resources against the requirements of social and

national responsibility. The idea of unrestricted development,

of all-out exploitation of resources, has an obvious attraction

in a robust and vigorous community like Queensland. But this

he11-for-leather approach, so appealing in the short term, carries

risks for the nation as a whole and for future generations. Those

risks are unacceptable. The Labor Party must say so loud and

clear. No responsible federal government any longer pretends that

mining companies and foreign developers should be able to do as they

please. The takeover of Australian industries and resources under

successive Liberal governments was finally checked by Labor. No

national government would dare return to the open-go policies of

the past, though State governments would like to - and do. For

the same reason no government can ignore the environment in framing

its policies. The Labor Government appointed the first full-time

federal Minister for Environment. If it wasn't for Labor's concern

for the environment the Fraser Government would not give the subject

a thought. Enlightened governments in every civilized country now

respect the arguments of conservationists that certain parts of.the

earth's suface - because of their beauty, their uniqueness, or thoir

re.1 uH.on-ship to the natural order - should be preserved unspoiled.

o Tl.« bustle of a civilized community is its belief that certain values

transc«Ï„ η economics. Today's barbarian is the man, all too often

the politician, who venerates the bulldozer, the axe,the miner's

drill and the speculator's dollar above all else.

Queensland affords three prime examples of the dilemmas

i-oSed by environmental issues. One is Fraser Island. Clearly a

region like Fraser Island ought to be preserved in the national j.ntur<

. . . /IP.


The undoubted human and social problems involved in this decision

have to be tackled and overcome. They can best be tackled by the

kind of regional employment and job retraining schemes developed

by a T.abor government. My Government put proposals to the

Queensland Government for the development of the shipbuilding '

industry in Maryborough. We also put forward our plan for a

growth centre in Townsville comparable to Albury-Wodonga. All

these plans were rejected, and not surprisingly, the Queensland

Government is showing the same ill temper and arrogance towards

the Fraser Government that it showed te us. It tube's the view,

common to conservatives in this co. . i r y that any eXisting industry

no mat: lev how anti-social or uncompi· tit L or irstH C i cient - has a

right to e-vpect that Governments will gua i'antee els existence

forever. They c a n ’t and they w o n ' h,

’ 'he second great env n.i.muiital issue vcricrfns the

Barrier iSeef» Seven years ago, when Mr Gorton prime Minister,

he wns concerned about oil dr'll.ling on the reef · drilling

per'ini Lbcidf and encouraged by the Queensland Goveinr-rnt , It was

Mr Gorton * s agitation - and I give him credit for - i . L -l which led

to the appointment of Royal Commissions into drilling by the

Queensland and Australian Governments. But Mr Gorton.was n ’t just

couctu-ned about the Reef. He Look the wiuer view supported . Cf .

by our party - that all .off-shore areas, the whole continental

shelf around Australia, is the proper responsibility of the national

government., not the States. He recognised that the off-shore areas

lie outside our land borders; their definition involves questions

of foreign relations; and most off-shore activities, such as

mining and mineral exploration, affect not·· only the environment

but our trade as a nation.



So the Gorton Government in April 1970 brought in legislation

to bring these areas under the control of the Australian government.

I ■ ' .

There was a howl of protest from the mining interests and State-

righters and the Liberals in Canberra went to water. When we

came in we reintroduced the legislation; the Queensland Government.

promptly challenged it in the High Court and that challenge,

. like every other challenge to Labor's legislation in the

High Court, was rejected. The Labor Government legislated for

a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to safeguard the reef for all time.

The third great environmental, issue concerns uranium.

Our opponents fondly believed that it would split the party;

it did not. The policy of the Labor movement is clear. The

Parliamentary Party considered the issues raised by the Fox

report on uranium mining in November last year. The caucus

decision was endorsed by the National Executive of the Party.

The ACTU adopted a similar policy. Our decision, took account of

the wider issues faced by Australia as a consequence of its

ownership of some twenty per cent of the world's uranium, and

such current issues as employment and energy needs. The Fraser

government dismissed these wider considerations. With typical

dishonesty and cynicism it misrepresented the findings of the

Fox report and rushed into policy decisions before any public debate

o t

The decisions taken by the Labor movement in November

authorise production at Mary Kathleen in fulfilment of existing

contracts. - They insists however, that no further action on

Australian uranium takes place until there are adequate safeguards

against nuclear weapons proliferation and provision for waste

disposal and control. These decisions were responsible and

consistent with the political, economic and humanitarian concerns

of our party. *

. .../14


There was an awful ring of inevitability about the Fraser Government

abandonment of the Fox report and the vital issues raised in it.

Once again it has been shown that only Labor can develop resources

policies.which serve Australia's economic needs and ensure the

preservation of our human and physical environment.

Rational, balanced, contemporary policies for Queensland's

development are the best answer to the dogmatism and extremism

which the conservative parties have.fostered in this State.

Labor must provide that alternative. We can never hope to beat

the extremists and rabid State-righters at their own game. The

Queensland people will respect a party that stands up for its

principles; that stands up for humanity and justice; that

recognises its national and international responsibilities;

that abhors narrow-mindedness and separatism; that upholds

Australia's status as an independent nation. Recent actions

of the conservative parties, both federal and State,, have

not so much enhanced the status of Queensland but diminished Lite

sovereignty of Australia. The Liberals in Canberra and the

Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland repeatedly blocked

Labor's moves to make the High Court the final court of appeal

for Australians. The conservative States have repeatedly relied

or 11'.-.'ir legal status as British colonies to obstruct the policies .

of an Australian government. The chickens came home to roost

when tho British Government refused to reappoint the Governor of

Queensland. Certainly a British Government's power in such

matters is farcical; certainly it is a relic of colonialism that

Australian State Governors should be British officials commissioned

by the Queen of Britain on the recommendation of the British

Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. But that very colonial status,

that very anachronism, has been tolerated and staunchly defended by

State governments themselves. ,



The point to remember about Sir Colin Hannah is that lio government,

■ State or federal, British or Australian, conservative or socialist,

with an ounce of respect for the traditions of a constitutional

monarchy could have tolerated ,the abuse of the Governor's office

perpetrated by the vice-regal incumbent .in this State i Even

Mr Fraser,' when Tom Uren asked him in Parliament if he had restored

Sir Colin Hannah's dormant commission as Administrator, replied

that he had not. Even Mr Fraser does the right thing occasionally.

I have said that Labor's great task in Queensland is to

develop policies relevant to the people's needs. But let's not

fall for the conservative line that our basic policies are outdated.

The Liberals like to pretend that Labor's policies for the cities

are no longer relevant; that our policies for health, education

and public transport are out of date. But are they? More to

the point, will they ever be? Let me give a couple of . examples.

Next month a new hospital at Richmond is scheduled for completion.

It was built with the assistance of the Australian Government.

In April a similar hospital at Yeppoon is due to be finished;

in M a y \ a hospital a t .Boonah. A total of $15 million was allocated

for these projects in the current y ear, :They are necessary, :

worthwhile projects. Does anyone imagine, they would have been

built if it had not been for the Labor Government in Canberra?

ο I m e n ’"on three railway projects in Brisbane - all basic, essential

- community services: . the new Roma Street to Northgate track to

. be completed by rieXt May, the Cross-Fiver rail link to be completed

by March next year, the electrification of the line from Darru

to Ferny Grove, due to be finished by July next year. None of these

works would have been undertaken, or even considered, if it had

not been for the Labor Government. Are such policies now irrelevant?

. . ./l6

1 6 .

Whenever we hear talk about new policies let us remember what '

Labor stands for and will always Stand for. We stand for education, ■ ■ i

for health, for community services, for security in old age and

retirement, for protection against illness or misfortune, for

justice, for equality. These are Labor's policies. The people .

expect them. We will develop them for particular States and

regions, but in Essence they remain our goals everywhere.

It is time we scrapped the idea that Queensland

is a special case among the States, in some way freakish or

different from the rest of Australia. Certainly a federal

Labor Government must have distinctive policies for Queensland,

but basically Queensland's needs are Australia's needs: jobs,

security, sound development, material progress, abundant opportunitic

for a richer and fuller life fbr our people. Queensland is

suffering like the rest of Australia from the economic incompetence

of, the Fraser Government. Queensland is suffering like the other

States from the Fraser Government's misguided obsession with the

deficit, its broken promises, its deliberate creation of

unemployment, its starving of the public sector. (I shall

circulate a list of projects in Queensland which the Fraser

Government have abandoned or curtailed. ) Queenslanders are ,

suffering like all of us from the prolonged recession, the cutbacks

in public works, the tightening credit squeeze, the dithering

on the exchange rate, the slump in business confidence, the

idle factories, the sluggish retail sales, the fall in investment,

the whole disastrous economic malaise brought about by the Fraser

Government's policies. When Labor left office, after three years

e'r international recession, international inflation and international

uncertainty, we were seeing the first signs of genuine economic rccox

. . ./:i


The rest of the world went on to consolidate and strengthen that

recovery. In Australia the Fraser Government threw it away.

The year just past, was a year wasted, a year lost. The men

who grabbed power to save the economy have made the economy worse.

The Fraser Government is fond of telling us that our ■

problems will only be solved by cooperation, by all sections

of the community working together. In a sense this is no more them

Liberal rhetoric; what it means for Mr. Fraser is that wage earners

must give up their expectations of higher wages) even those

increased which merely compensate for increases ih the cost of

living. There is a sensei however, in which appeals for cooperation

and consensus have real meaning, a meaning which the Labor1 Party

can enthusiastically endorse. More than that, only the Labor

Party can give effect to this aspiration for consensus because

our whole economic philosophy provides the basis for it.

Alone among the parties we stand for a strong mixed economy.

It is the mixed economy, the balance between the public and

private sectors, which expresses the great democratic ideal

of cooperation - cooperation between governments and people,

between private investment and,public expenditure, between ;

private capital and national resources, between personal profit

and community responsibility. Destroy the mixed economy and we destroy

Lhe basis of consensus. Undermine the mixed economy and we r ,

undermine the basis, of national ,unity.

Make no mistake: 1977 will be a critical year. It could

decide our future for years to come. Another year of Fraserism

may prove disastrous. The people have had a year of the

Fraser-Lynch-Sinclair Governmeht and they have seen the results in

a stagnating economy, a calamitous devaluation, broken promises,



secrecy and deception, the destruction of great social programs,

a massive indifference to human and community needs, a government

bereft of vision, imagination, sensitivity or social purpose.

Every day that passes strengthens my conviction that the Fraser

Government can be beaten. .It will be beaten because it is

irrelevant to A u s t r a l i a n e e d s ; it offers nothing but a return

to privilege, complacency and stagnation. It will be defeated

by a united and determined Labor Party Which puts the needs of

people first, a party pledged to restore jobs and security, build a better and fairer society for Australians and

their families.