UNITY IN AUTONOMY LAUNCH – JOHN HOWARD

August 2024 marked 80 years since Robert Menzies brought together the dysfunctional groups of non Labor political associations and the remnants of the United Australia Party to found a new party to be called The Liberal Party of Australia. Over two conferences in Canberra and Albury at the end of 1944, the Party took roots and would go on to win government from the Labor Party in a stunning victory in December 1949. On Thursday 28 November, former Australian Prime Minister The Hon John Howard OM AC and former National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister The Hon John Anderson AC launched Unity in Autonomy – A Federal History of the Founding of the Liberal Party at The Sydney Institute. They were joined by the Robert Menzies Institute’s director Georgina Downer, The Sydney Institute’s Anne Henderson and Unity in Autonomy contributing editor Zachary Gorman.

UNITY IN AUTONOMY LAUNCH

JOHN HOWARD

I’m reminded tonight that when Bob Menzies did his retirement press conference, when he announced early in 1966 that he was retiring as prime minister and from politics, he was asked what were his great achievements. He said – of course there were many – two that I single out is first and foremost the preservation of the Coalition and also of course his contribution to the growth of education opportunities. He was not only referring to his remarkable foresight in ending the sectarian bitterness associated with the absence of State aid for Catholic, in particular, but also all Independent Schools, but also what he had done for higher education. He did more to make it easier for young Australians to go to university than his distinguished successor, and one of my distinguished predecessors, Gough Whitlam had done.

Tonight, I’m delighted to be here to congratulate Zachary and others who put together this book about the formation of the Liberal Party of Australia. Can I say, in the absence of a prompt sheet, I’ve detected two great contributors to Liberal success in this room in the person of Nick Griener and Barry O’Farrell. Nick, of course, ended a long drought for the Liberal Party in New South Wales. I remember the night very well; I was a struggling opposition leader and he was a triumphant opposition leader who had just become Premier. I thank you Nick for ending that drought. Of course, things have a habit of repeating themselves. We had more droughts later on and we needed an Irishman to end them and O’Farrell did it; he did it well and he did it with great aplomb in 2011. So, I welcome Barry and thank him.

My late arrival of course reminds me of this. I know former prime ministers shouldn’t tell stories out of school – the school is a cabinet meeting. But I adopted a practice that at the beginning of each cabinet meeting if you had any appointments then they would be dealt with first. I remember the first cabinet meeting with this rule to apply, I arrived on time, I think a bit before time. There were a few stragglers. And after about 20 minutes, one cabinet minister, my dear friend Tony Abbott, said “Aye prime minister, what about my appointments?” I said, “Oh we’ve dealt with appointments.” He said, “Well you haven’t dealt with mine.” I said “When did you arrive?” He said, “About five minutes ago.” From then on, Tony arrived on time. It was a very considerable effort.

I want to thank those who put this book together because it was often said of Liberals that unlike their counterparts in the Labor Party they never bragged about their achievements, and they didn’t write enough about their history. I think That was probably true. One of the reasons that I wrote the book Menzies’ Era was to make a small contribution to the view of a later Liberal prime minister to the contribution that Menzies, and indeed Holt and Gorton and McMahon had made, because it covered the period to the election of the Whitlam government. And I’m sure that that is what Georgina had in mind when she encouraged Zachary and others to put this book together. One of the things that is interesting about this book is that it traces the different development of the Liberal Party in the different parts of Australia. And although I found an enormous amount in common amongst Liberals around Australia when I was prime minister and before that as leader of the opposition, one of the other things I understood were the different impacts of the different cultures of the two parties. I learned very early that relations between the Liberal Party and the Country Party, later the National Country Party and then the National Party, had varied from state to state. It was very robust, if I can put it in that polite way, in Western Australia. I entered Federal Parliament with two members who had defeated sitting Country Party members – the two Liberal members I recall were Mel Bungey and John Hyde. John Hyde was known as the one-armed bandit.  He’d suffered a very severe farming accident and had lost an arm in the process. He, of course, was something of a dry. I won’t say he was the first dry – but he was certainly one of the early dries in the Liberal Party. They had defeated two Country Party Members of Parliament.

And then, of course, you come over to the other side of the continent there were people who were covertly members of both parties. It was often said of Ralph Hunt that he was a secret member of the Liberal Party, but I won’t ask John to say anything about that. It was a metaphor for the close relations.  The best illustration of that was when many years later we had the absolutely disastrous “Joh for PM” campaign that ensured the re-election of the Hawke government and robbed the Coalition of any chance of victory. And, of course, the most amazing statement that was ever made to me during that crisis was by the then president of the National Party in New South Wales, who said to me that if Joh carries out this madness and the Queensland Nationals endorse any candidates against Liberals in New South Wales we will campaign for the Liberals against our fellow Nationals. And that was the statement made by the then Chairman of the New South Wales Nationals.  It showed a difference.

As the title of this book suggests, “Unity in Autonomy” is a very suitable label for the way in which the Liberal Party emerged. One of the fascinating counterfactuals I suppose I can think of in that context is that if the much lauded – by some Liberals – rigid national structure of the Labor Party had not obtained, at the time of the great split in 1955 – in other words if you’d had the Liberal Party’s federal structure, which prevents a forcible takeover of a state division by the national body, you would never have had the Labor Party split. The Labor Party split only was consummated by the power of the federal executive of the Labor Party to disband the Victorian division of the Labor Party. Now if our rule had obtained – now we’ve just – this is very relevant because in recent months the federal executive of the Liberal Party has used its powers to suspend the New South Wales Division and can I say it’s a very laudable decision. I say that as a lifelong – indeed an honorary life member of the New Wales Division of the Liberal Party – that I thought the action of the federal executive of the party was absolutely justified. But there was an element of volunteerism about it.  It wasn’t the brutal exercise of power against the declared will of the victim of that exercise of power, which occurred in 1955.

And think how the history of Australia politically would have been different if Bert Evatt and the left-wing majority on the federal executive of the Labor Party had not been able to disband the Victorian branch of the Labor Party and thereby create the great split which guaranteed Menzies not only the 1955, 1958, but crucially of course the 1961 election, where if the Labor Party had not split and you had not had that magnificently disciplined flow of DLP preferences to the Liberal Party, the world would indeed have been different. And we wouldn’t have been talking about 23 years.  We would have been talking about the number of years between 1949 and 1961.

So, it is worthwhile reflecting on that as an illustration of the wisdom of people who put together the party in 1944. So much of course was owed to Menzies himself who’d gone through a lot of political despair. And a quote – I’ve forgotten the name of that Scottish poet – it would have been a Scottish poet if it was Bob Menzies – about going away and bleeding awhile.  Which of course he did. He went away and “bled a while”, and that bleeding was very beneficial because he came back with great strength and enormous commitment to the formation of the party.

I’m so happy that John (Anderson) is here today because he does symbolise – his presence – how important that Coalition is. I think of the wonderful trust – and that’s a good word in politics because sometimes you scratch around to find it – yes you do sometimes – but what was so important to the success of the Menzies government was the understanding he had with Arthur Fadden. And there had been a history to that – we hadn’t always been harmonious.  I’ve often thought that about the nastiest personal attack ever made on somebody in federal parliament was made by Earle Page, a senior Country Party figure, who accused Menzies of disloyalty to his party, disloyalty to his leader and, worst of all, disloyalty and treachery almost to his country by not volunteering for military service in World War I; notwithstanding the fact that two of his older brothers were at the front. I think both of them were wounded in action and a family decision had been taken that Bob should stay at home to care for his elderly parents.  Notwithstanding all of that.  But he forgave that – he overlooked it.  He felt munificent having won the 1949 election and he made Earle Page his first Health Minister. That happens in politics but I think it’s very important to understand the strength of that bond.  And he knew, Menzies knew after the party was formed, especially after it won in 1949, that a working relationship with Arthur Fadden and the Country Party was essential.

I’ve always admired John McEwen, not just because of his very astute leadership of the Country Party and his advocacy of the things that were important to that party, but I also admired the fact that he stuck by the Coalition. There was no better advocate on the floor of parliament, after Menzies himself, to the American alliance and our at times growing unpopularity of association with the Americans, particularly years later at the time of Vietnam, than John McEwen for the American alliance. Especially with the Liberals’ growing unpopularity of the association with the US, particularly years later at the time of Vietnam than John McEwen.  And he was was very instrumental. But he had a trust with Menzies. And I saw it in action when I became a very junior member of the Fraser Ministry.  Malcolm Fraser had trust in his Country Party colleagues.  He had a very deep friendship with Peter Nixon and Doug Anthony, and also Ralph Hunt and Ian Sinclair. But it went beyond the personal; they had a lot in common. They were farmers.  They weren’t enthusiastically in favour of financial deregulation, the system. They had the farmers’ suspicion of bankers, but gee they worked together. I found my association with Country Party ministers – I learned a lot from Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair and Peter Nixon. They were straight-shooters. They told you when they were going to disagree with you and did it very effectively. But it was never done in a duplicitous way.

I think the trust that existed between Malcolm Fraser and Doug Anthony, particularly, was very important and fundamental to the fact that Fraser did win power in 1975. He held it in 1977 and again in 1980. I resolved that if I ever became prime minister, I would emulate Menzies and Fraser in my dealings with the National Party. Fortunately, I had three wonderful people in whom I could repose complete trust. They were first Tim Fischer and secondly John Anderson and finally Mark Vaile. We had a very early test that came at the time of that tragedy at Port Arthur. I knew that we had to do something big on that because that was the biggest number of people killed at the hands of a single gunman in history, certainly in Australian history, until that Breivik massacre in Norway. I knew that we couldn’t get anywhere on that unless we presented a united front to the states. It was pretty tough for the Nats because you had a lot of members had worked hard to get rid of the Labor government and elect a Coalition government and, within six weeks, we were telling law-abiding branch members they had to give up their guns.

Now I could mount a good argument, but gee I needed the help of my colleagues. And I’ve always adopted the practice whenever mentioning that issue in public, of thanking Tim and John Anderson and Mark and also Rob Borbidge, who was the one National Party premier.

It was easy for urban Liberals. I mean it was so overwhelmingly supported in the cities, particularly by women, to the extent that I was stopped by a lady in Pitt Street once – seriously – and she said, “I wouldn’t vote for you if my life depended on it”.  Well thanks – a good start.  “Where do you live?”  She said, “Young Street, Annandale” and I said, “Oh yeah, sounds like it.”  And she said, “But I tell you what, I agree with you on guns, and you don’t back down on guns”. And, of course, I wasn’t really relying on her, but it was an indication but once you got away from the cities it was hard.

I’ve not forgotten a conversation I had with Warren Truss who held the seat of Wide Bay in Queensland – very marginal. On the eve of the 1998 election, I rang Warren and I said, “How’s it going? and he said, “Something awful”.  I said tell me about it. It’s hard enough he said – because in those days the Liberals and Nationals endorsed candidates against each other in Queensland.  “I‘ve got a Nat running” and he said, “I’ve got some independent ratbag running who claims to be a Liberal.” No, of course he was a Nat – “… and I’ve got the Labor running and I’ve got this independent Country Liberal and… ” he said, “I’ve got three other Independents who are running on a pro-gun platform and …”, he said, “They’re all blaming you.” I just said, “Well stick with it.” He said, “I certainly intend to do that, but my hopes are not high.”  Fortunately, he hung on and he went on to be a wonderful Deputy Prime Minister to Tony Abbott, very loyal. I mention all of those things and of course Rob Borbidge suffered very severely from that, undermined no end by some of the more renegade people in his own government, even in his own Ministry. I admired the Nats for their loyalty on that; they knew that there was a lot at stake and there was no way we, having launched a campaign to ban guns, no way we could back off on that. So, I just mention those things to say how tremendously important trust and loyalty is.

To you Georgina, thank you very much for this and to Zachary for putting together the various contributions. I think the illustration on the front is a wonderful depiction of what was involved. I mean there was a saying around Sydney that you never win with Menzies – in the late 1940s – and it was said that Menzies was particularly unpopular in Sydney.

Well, the real reason that I’m late is that I was penning a tribute to Tom Hughes who died this morning at the age of 101 – amazing life. Tom and I had been friends, close friends, for 60 years. I was his campaign director in 1963. It was quite a memorable election campaign; it was punctuated by the terrible assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas on the 22 November 1963. Tom won that seat of Parkes, which was a highly marginal seat. And despite the fact that a journalist, who remains nameless, described it this afternoon as being a rural electorate – which showed a superficial approach to basic research – Dr Henderson, would you say that?  No, no, I won’t name the journalist.  No, I won’t.  Parkes at that stage, let me tell you, comprised the suburbs of Earlwood – where I was living with my mother at the time and I had been born there and grew up there – Canterbury, Dulwich Hill, Ashbury, Campsie, Enfield South and Croydon Park. Hardly Killara, Gordon, Pymble country. It was very marginal, and Tom won it with a swing of 7 per cent. He held it again in 1966, and then went elsewhere, and then finally retired in 1972. But it’s just a reminder that the contribution of individuals is always to be honoured. Tom Hughes, of course, was a federal Attorney-General. He was probably the last – perhaps the only – no, certainly not the only – but certainly the last Commonwealth Attorney-General to have personally argued a case in the High Court. He argued for the Commonwealth in the, for the lawyers present, the well-known Concrete Pipes case, which defined the extent of the corporations power, which proved to be very important in some later cases, including  – it had some significance in the Franklin Dam case, but had particular significance in the case on some industrial relations legislation to which I was rather emotionally, as well as politically, attached. So, that’s the real reason why I was late.

To all of you, thank you for coming. Thank you.  I know many people in this room have been great supporters of Liberal Party. There are some I haven’t seen before and that’s terrific. It means the drawing power of The Sydney Institute and The Menzies Research Centre. But to you Georgina, the work you do, is work for the better understanding of Australian politics. I know it honours our greatest and longest-serving Prime Minister and rightly so. But I think the contribution that it makes to a better understanding of Australian politics is very significant and I’m very happy that I have been in this room before and addressing in company people of the other side of politics on at least one occasion, and I think that’s very important. We’ve had a lot of talk about comparisons between America and Australia. I think our politics, despite the superficialities, is more rational and civil than American. I hope that in digesting the lessons of the American election for Australians, those in my party who seek to draw encouragement from what happened, should continue to do that, but understand the Australian public, politically, is a more sceptical public, a less gullible public, than the American. I think we should understand that in seeking to draw too many comparisons. Thank you.