It is often said the Labor Party glorifies its history, even its notable failures – and that is the only explanation that can be given for the glorification of the Whitlam Government, given it was tossed out in the biggest landslide in Australian history after only three years.

John Howard with his hero in the 1970s.

But one important anniversary in Australian politics has gone largely unnoticed. Last week was the 60th anniversary of the Robert Menzies-led Liberal Party defeating Ben Chifley’s Labor Government in 1949.

The victory of the newly formed Liberal Party over the Chifley Labor Government led to 21 years of Liberal Coalition government. And it is no overstatement to claim that this was the single most important election in Australia during the twentieth century.

I dug up both Menzies’ and Chifley’s policy speeches from 1949 and was struck by the what they had to say.
 

Chifley rattled on about the merits of central planning in manufacturing, shipbuilding, wheat production and the role of government.

Menzies on the other hand railed against the intrusion of the state into the private sphere, warning about the encroachment of socialism by stealth.

It may seem difficult to believe now, but in 1949, Australia faced the very real prospect of a dramatic shift toward a socialised economy. Ben Chifley had attempted to nationalise the banks and airlines, and there was little doubt that if re-elected Labor would seek to follow the British Labour Party’s program of socialisation of major industries across the economy.

This election was a tipping point between Australia heading down a path of a highly regulated and government-controlled economy, of housing being primarily a government responsibility versus the private-enterprise model championed by Menzies, with the aspiration of home ownership for all.

For various reasons, there is always much greater media fanfare about Labor anniversaries than Liberal ones. Maybe this is because the 1949 election ushered in an era of unprecedented economic growth, domestic peace and security – Menzies was not a radical failure like Whitlam.

If we consider only a few elements Menzies’ legacy, his contribution to modern Australia is apparent.

In foreign affairs, the cementing of the alliance with the United States; in education the dramatic expansion of university and tertiary education and the systematic funding of non-government schools for the first time; in immigration the largest and most radical transformation of Australia in our history.

The Labor Party, and particularly Paul Keating, have sought to diminish the achievements of this era. I suppose a partisan warrior like Keating must seek some explanation for the abject electoral, policy and political failure of the Labor Party for over two decades. But to do so is to dismiss the aspirations of Australians who had experienced war and depression, expressed at the polling booth for two decades.

For that generation, economic security and a commitment to cooperation with our allies against what we now know to be an international network of communism was not boring or without imagination, it was the prime responsibility of government. They knew that governments attempting to create a utopian society usually ended in tyranny or disaster. For them, the ‘light on the hill’ was job, a home and a better life for their children.

On the 60th anniversary of Menzies’ win, we should recognise the achievements of Australia’s longest-serving Prime Minister – and the socialist path he ensured Australia did not travel.

40 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • stephen says:

      04:50am | 14/12/09

      John Howard didn’t look like that in the 1970’s

    • John A Neve says:

      07:00am | 14/12/09

      Yes, I’d have to agree, this was the “most important election in our history”.
      It showed a NEW part could be both viable and win elections.  We need a NEW party now, both our major parties are bogged down in a mire of sameness, the differences (if there are any), are too slight as to be of any importance.

      Australia needs something NEW, FRESH AND INVIGORATING.

    • Troy Duncan says:

      07:08am | 14/12/09

      I agree with Stephen. John Howard did not look like that in the 1970s.

    • Mr. Peabody says:

      07:33am | 14/12/09

      I agree with Stephen and Troy. John Howard wasn’t grey in the 1970’s. Plus Menzies had a stroke in 1971 which left him physically incapacitated somewhat.

      I could be wrong but I think the photo is a fake.

    • Louis McLennan says:

      07:40am | 14/12/09

      Be nice is people still thought the same of socialism today. People just forget?

      John, Maybe we just need to get the should be Labor members out of the liberal party.

    • T.Chong says:

      07:43am | 14/12/09

      An embarrassing photo shop.. But maybe its a montage , representing JH fantasy, much like Mr Smithers dreaming about CM Burns flying thru his window.

    • Macon Paine says:

      07:46am | 14/12/09

      Nice article Scott, you articulated your points well. Although beware the barrage of die hard Gough defenders which will no doubt rush to defend their idol.

      @ John, nice to see your not being so negative. Might I suggest something like the Libertarian party for Australia? They would seem to offer a legitimate alternative to Labour/Liberal. The Greens don’t really count because appart from their commitment to the environment which is admirable, they really are a bunch of watermelons.

    • Darren says:

      07:54am | 14/12/09

      history - a few fact checking exercised might not go astray - 21 years of Tory Government from 1949 - that takes it to 1970! - I always thought that Whitlam got elected in 1972 - so Scott the Historian - what happened to the other two years - I am not sure if you are poor @ history or arithmetic - maybe that is why Tony the Tory makes such glaring errors on his maths re the CPRS?

    • John A Neve says:

      08:09am | 14/12/09

      Macon & Louis,

      My real concern is the fact that Labor and Liberal no longer have any meaning in our world. Likewise, worker or boss, how do we define a worker or boss today?

      Labor no longer is aligned with “workers” any more than Liberals are aligned with “small business”.  Like “worker”, “small business” is dying, conglomerates are killing them off.

      We talk of competition! But sadly there is no real competition, the big fish eat the little fish and then there are only big fish.

      The whole system needs review.

    • Nick says:

      08:16am | 14/12/09

      What a load of crap. Menzies enjoyed the boom years of post war reconstruction and the wool boom of the Korean War. Luck.

      Immigration a Menzies initiative?: I didn’t know Arthur Calwell, the Minister who had prime responsibility for the surge of post war non British immigration, was a member of Menzies’ cabinet!

      The massive expansion in education and housing was a result of population boom and was managed by State, often Labor governments, through a rapid expansion of public schools, and suburbs developed by Housing Commissions.

      And given the cost of housing in NSW today one might question the benefits of private sector control of housing. It is after all a basic need that is denied to too many because of the costs or rent levels demanded by investors

      Wasn’t it Curtin who unashamedly turned to America during the war, laying the foundation for the US Alliance? Menzies’ contribution was to comply with US wishes that formed part of its Cold war strategy. Menzies was an unabashed royalist with an English title: remember the currency was to be called Royals, and the sickening : “I did see her passing…”

      Admire Menzies for his longevity in government by all means but don’t assume that the post war boom was purely his invention.

    • RT says:

      08:37am | 14/12/09

      The most important election win in Australian history was that by John Curtin early in world war 2. Curtin took over from the bumbling Coalition government, at one stage led by Menzies. Menzies and co had no idea how to fight the war, simultaneously in thrall to Britain and her interests and terrified of the Japanese ‘yellow peril’ but without a cohesive plan.

      Curtin, Chifley, Forde and co turned all that around in the finest few years of government in our history. It wasn’t easy, like Menzies’ later two decades of peace and prosperity were. The strain of steering Australia through the war told on the men mainly responsible, sending both Curtin and Chifley to early graves.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:01am | 14/12/09

      John A Neve: ezy to tell the workers from the bosses. Workers were/are the ones who under Abbotts/Andrews SerfChoices 2 were to bargain how little they can live on, bosses are the ones who support the LNP with Serfchoices 2.
      Smart workers have unions. Bosses have collusion

    • monkeytypist says:

      09:18am | 14/12/09

      One thing Menzies would have achieved if he was around and active today: An ETS that protected Middle Australia from the ravages of climate change.  Shame Liberal Party, Shame.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:27am | 14/12/09

      T.Chong @ 1001hrs.

      I have always felt “serfchoices” as you call it would impact on us all and badly. So that is no definition of a “worker”.

      Tell us, how do you define a “worker”?

    • Louis McLennan says:

      09:34am | 14/12/09

      T.Chong, you make me laugh. “Smart workers have unions.” Oxymoron?

    • T.Chong says:

      10:09am | 14/12/09

      L.McL 10:34 after the nastiyness of Reith and Howards “waterfront ” gamble to remove workers rights, some of the exADF people were given the boot when Patricks had no use for them.as strike breakers.
      I recall that several of the strike breakers (or scabs) when retrenched, actually bemoaned how badly Patricks treated them, and conceeded they would have been better off in a union.
      In 2007 the union movement was the main cause for the defeat of the “man of steel”, was it not? - you know, educating people about their rights.
      And L McL , assuming you work, do you have a 38hr week, sick leave, annual leave, super, OH+S, job security?
      Where did those conditions come from?
      Just remember “You cant hurt me, Im part of the union, ” It pays to belong.
      J.A.N 10:27 workers accepts the(award!) pay from bosses in exchange for goods/services,no?
      Not sure if your referring to locums of varios types.

    • Poem of the day says:

      10:11am | 14/12/09

      If you consider your self a worker, you are lazy, dumb or perhaps a shirker…

    • Castro says:

      10:24am | 14/12/09

      I agree with RT but only to a point.  Chifley and Curtain were admirable leaders.  They were real Labor people: an engine driver and a teacher, hard men who (especially in Chifley’s case) actually tried to put what they believed into practice.

      They put the current pack of career bureaucrats and union hacks to shame.  Labor has never recovered from Whitlam who was without doubt the worst Prime Minister in modern history.  The current Labor Party should be sued for false advertising (where is the bloke who sued John Farnham after his ‘last tour’?) and forced to change their name. The only people I know who vote Labor are inner city office dwellers who have never done a days work in their lives; all the tradesmen I know vote Liberal.  How did this happen?

      Whilst on the topic of “the Golden Age” of Aussie politics, how about some of the Liberal leaders of yesteryear?  Dashing playboys with mistresses; Holt on the beach with his paramour, Billy Sneddon dying whilst on the nest.  Apparently the prostitute he was with at the time was asked why she didn’t seek help when he was dying and she said “I thought he was coming, not going”!

    • T.Chong says:

      10:25am | 14/12/09

      PODTS 11:11am the vast majority of Australians are employed by corporations or public sector. Are they lazy,dumb or shirkers?
      Doctors (in hospitals) nurse, police, teachers, ADF personel all loosers?
      A tiny minority are self employed, and even if self employed. working for the big end of town, one way or another.
      Maybe people who think otherwise are delusional

    • John A Neve says:

      10:32am | 14/12/09

      T.Chong @ 1109hrs.

      Move on man, we all “accept the pay” in “exchange for goods/services” so who is the boss and who is the worker?

      I would suggest in todays world we are all either bosses or all workers. Most businesses are owned by shareholders (us via super), so are we bosses?

      Jamie Packer is a worker, he doesn’t own the business, we do and he can be sacked if the board so desires.

      Just think for a moment, then try to answer my questions.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      10:32am | 14/12/09

      @ Louis: I suspect the inverse is more true: “Smart Unions have workers.”

      Menzies was a monolithic figure in Australian Politics. Any time partisans from the left yabber on about Whitlam all the Right neesd to do is say “Scoreboard” and point to him.

      He wasn’t our greatest Prime Minister, but he WAS a steady hand on the wheel over almost two decades. You can see how important that was by looking at the awful mess his immediate liberal successors made of things.

      The partisans who say Immigration was a labor creation need to read their history. Labor was pro-White Australia well into the 1960s. The mutual support for the Aboriginal citizenship referendum was a landmark (and one which puts modern “liberals” to shame. While the gross attempts to ban the communist party are a black mark against Menzies (However loopy the Communist Party in Australia was, it would be like Rudd trying to ban Family First).

      In any case, a more interesting article might have been looking at what Australia would have looked like today had Chifley won… it would be a different place that’s for sure!

    • Liz says:

      10:48am | 14/12/09

      So if Menzies hadn’t got in we might have had a decent Health Service, water supplies not owned by the French and we might still own the farm?

    • Toddzilla says:

      10:53am | 14/12/09

      T. Chong: You’re wrong, of course. Smart workers don’t have unions - they don’t need them because they are of value to the company in and of themselves. Bad workers need unions in order to maintain jobs and pay that aren’t commensurate with their abilities. That is all unions stand for: More for those who don’t deserve it, less for those who do. If you need a union, you obviously can’t do your job.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:59am | 14/12/09

      What we have is a political system that has failed to keep pace with the world’s changes.

      People are still thinking in terms of Boss/Worker.  Of Labor or Liberal of serf and master, come on, that’s all changed.

      These people (our elected leaders), are playing with our money, your financial advisor looses you money, not theirs!!  Ziggy got paid out but your share value dropped!!!!!

      Kev and Tony will still get their super come what may and you will be paying for it.

      Forget the past, lets look to the future .

    • A former Labor voter says:

      11:17am | 14/12/09

      To the vitriolic lefties posting here – abuse, insults and condescension do little to make your view of the world worth buying into.

      Regards,
      A former Labor voter

    • Patrick says:

      11:32am | 14/12/09

      I’m willing to bet that Menzies would not give a flattering appraisal of the Liberal party today.

      The party was founded on the principles of individualism and free enterprise, but now it is controlled by the religiously devoted moralizing hard right, and led by a man who hasn’t totally grasped the concept of separation of church and state. The interference of religion in somebody’s personal life is as bad as government interference in somebody’s personal life, but when you have a government using religion to interfere in people’s personal lives you have the worst of both worlds. Abbott believes that government is there to be a guiding moral force, and he has previously proven as Health Minister that his religious beliefs will influence his policy decisions over what is practical and pragmatic (see the RU486 issue for one example), and if he became Prime Minister I would expect him to behave the same way, just with more influence to carry out his goals.

      The shadow finance role has gone to the agrarian socialist Barnaby Joyce, an economic illiterate whose blustering tirades appeal to disaffected One Nation voters but very few others. In addition, the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, is considered by the business community at large as something of a buffoon (if you want verification of that claim, go do a vox pop of your own on the business community)

      Abbott recently proposed that we need more government action to regulate the banks to stop them putting up interest rates. Hmm, doesn’t that sound like something a socialist would say? His opinion on climate change as ” crap” aside,  Abbott has also been putting out token proposals of government regulated plans to deal with the issue, rather than supporting the market based approach which was the ETS (and also the Coalition’s own policy going into the last election) which should be the natural choice of economic Liberals, and the Liberalised approach favored by the business community at large.

      And let’s not get started on workchoices (or workchoices by any other name), a policy that strips workers of their personal and economic freedoms at work and tips the balance unacceptably towards that of bosses all in the name of some blind and confused ideology that I don’t think even many Liberal party supporters could explain anymore and that I don’t think even Menzies would look favorably upon.

      The Liberal party is not Liberal socially, it has been drifting further and further to the right on issues of personal freedom since Howard was elected, and if Abbott’s populist statements on the economy are anything to go by I would also question their commitment to the free market.

      The Liberal party is no longer Liberal in any sense of the word.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:33am | 14/12/09

      Toddzilla @ 1153hrs.

      I think you are wrong as well. Companies need unions, products are only sold for the price the market will bear. If incomes dropped right across the board, prices would have to come down. Have you never noticed companies like Myers sell the same article at their different stores at different prices?

      Be an employee ( I won’t use worker), good or bad, they are still a buyer and companies need buyers.

      In a system based on continual growth and our is, we must keep the masses employed, to buy what we sell.

    • Proud Aussie says:

      11:37am | 14/12/09

      Agree - the photo is a fake. I knew Howard in the 60’s and the 70’s and he didn’t look anything like that.  Looking at the other errors/myths - the Coalition ruled for 23 years - not 21.  As for those years being ones of great prosperity, let’s just remember what a backwater Australia was in those years.  As Edna Everage proclaimed - ‘there’s nobody we know there and no-one ever goes there and chances are they never will’. Menzies and Barnaby Joyce have so many similarities, both want/ed to sell the Chinese our food and minerals and take their money but Menzies wouldn’t recognise them diplomatically and Joyce doesn’t want their investment money.  The more things change the more they stay the same for conservatives.

    • Dan says:

      12:03pm | 14/12/09

      Toddzilla, “you need a union, you obviously can’t do your job. ” Not true. Very few jobs offer real security. Unless you have a unique skillset or have an occupation which has far less applicants than positions, then you are expendible. Even the best and smartest workers are expendible. Being in an union offers you protection, as very few workers have genuine protection otherwise.

      John A Neve, James Packer owns Consolidated Press Holdings Limited, so he can’t really be sacked by the board.

    • T.Chong says:

      12:10pm | 14/12/09

      Geez Toddzilla 11:53, I was just about to commend you for your observation about soccer.
      My view is : everyone gets a basic wage for whatever occupation .
      If you are in a union and that union gets award/conditions above the basic
      then you get the benefits. If you dont belong, you dont get the benefits.,
      and if you believe, as an individual, that you could gain more from your employers association (with its legal resources) is going to give, then good luck.
      Unionists benefit, employers benefit,(as low union membership = low payouts) no employee is coerced, and no non member gets to sponge off the union movement. Everyone wins.
      Union membership would be almost voluntarily universal overnight !

    • Razor says:

      12:13pm | 14/12/09

      Smart workers have unions.

      By that metric workers have been getting dumber as union membership has fallen below 20% of the workforce.  If you looked at only private sector membership, then it is substantially lower.

      Nice way to insult the majority of workers.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:15pm | 14/12/09

      Dan @ 1303hrs.

      While I stand to be corrected, I don’t think Jamie does own it. I think he still has an interest in it, but is not the sole owner. Likewise with the other parts of the Packer empire, I believe most of it has been sold off.

      However, this does not detract from my point, that is the whole problem with these blogs, to much concentration on detail, not enough on the big picture.

    • RT says:

      12:27pm | 14/12/09

      Castro - your misspelling of John Curtin’s name made me recall a quip made by Menzies to a heckler at a meeting.
      Heckler: Wotcha gunna do about ‘ousing, Menzies?
      Menzies: Put a ‘h’ on it.

    • formersnag says:

      12:56pm | 14/12/09

      John A Neve, there was a genuine third alternative in the Australian Democrats and voters were too ill informed, or too timid to break with the past and vote for it.

      Try this, number whichever of the 2 major party coalitions you hate the most, last, the other one second last, even with every allegedly lunatic fringe candidate listed in front, your vote will eventually go preferentially to whichever of the major’s is numbered second last.

      If we could get 15% to 20% of the electorate voting against the sitting member, whoever that is, then there would be no safe electorates. every one of them would get tossed out every 3 years and never collect superannuation.

    • Macon Paine says:

      02:18pm | 14/12/09

      @ formersnag 1:56pm

      In this article http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/half-jesuit-half-hooligan-and-a-cure-for-rudds-tedium/ your in the comments bagging out the Labour party as “Queer” which is just childish trolling. 
      Now your over here saying people were too ill informed or timid to vote democrat when they had the chance, perhaps this is true but the democrats are/were a centre left political party, which surprise surprise is pretty much the same as the Labour party!
      Does this mean you think the democrats are “Queer” as well? And why do you want people to vote for one “Queer” party but not another? Also what is with calling a political party “Queer”?

    • D'oh says:

      05:15pm | 14/12/09

      Meh, what I said on Swagman’s standup peice, I mean column….

    • phil says:

      06:21pm | 14/12/09

      Rightard dribble, Just think how much better off Australia would have been today if we didn’t have 21 long years of conservative inaction. It gave us nothing but catchup to the rest of the world even today. Anybody who voted in that election knew why Menzies won that election, it was because Menzies promised to drop rationing due to the war.  Dream on rightards, dream about the good old days you miss so much and how you’d like to change to history books to match your delusions.

    • Paul Horn says:

      10:49pm | 14/12/09

      Er Liz don’t know what planet you are on but the French don’t actually own our water assetts!! They simply manage, maintain and operate said assetts for the State Water Authority, which in the case of South Austrlaia is the SA Water Corporation!!!  That contract is up for renewal in 18 months and it is quite possible that the Government may well ditch their French Connection for something closer to home!! Only rumours but. But on that subject it is interesting to compare the achivements of State Premiers Liberal vs Labour! Tom Playford gave us reliable water supplies on a massive scale, oversaw mass electrification, manufacturing on a grand scale etc etc etc. That deviate Don Dunstan removed the cane from schools, built the Festival Theatre I think and what else - oh thats it Pink Hot pants. Nothing but pure useless masturbation yet the lefty press go on about this sodomist as if he was the greatest visionary to arrive on our shores. Makes you wonder doesn’t it??

      And as for work choices how can increasing flexibility in the work force deny workers their rights. I’ll tell you what denies one their rights when some pathetic union tosser demands to see your ticket before he allows you access to the site. When some stinking union tosser starts dictating to you how fast you can work and demands you stop working right on the bell no matter how close you are to finishing the job !!! SCUM!! What right does some unioninst low life have to dictate the terms of my damned employment! Just remember fools you are NOT employed by the unions but by entreprenuerial folk who get off their arse and are willing to take a risk. The Unions have never created a profitable business and never will. Their ability is driving a business into the ground and creating plenty of unemployed. Even that left wing stalwart Julia Gizzard recognises the relationship between unemploymemnt and wage rates. The higher the wage push by unions above the productive market rate the greater the unemployment level!!! If she can see the danger posed by the Unions on Australias competitive ability it don’t say much for you lot of trotskyists trapped in the 19th century!  Get modern or get out - back to the failed socialist enclave where you belong!!!

    • S.L says:

      06:07pm | 15/12/09

      I’m no political historian but didn’t Menzies and his party (Call to Australia Party?) resign at the begining of WW2? Leaving John Curtin to guide Australia through the war. An effort that eventually killed him!  Wasn’t it Menzies who famously said “we’ll live off the sheeps back” in the 50’s while other countries turned their war time factories into peace time enterprises? Wasn’t it that “communist” (remember the reds under the bed!) Chifley that introduced us to the first Holden? Didn’t Menzies seek to make his title hereditary? Prime minister Menzies was a brilliant electioneer but if you check his policies and what he achieved I think you’ll find some flaws to the myth.

    • jono says:

      01:52pm | 19/06/10

      I think howard should tell B.A Baracus how he thinks things should be.
      Pity the Fool.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

This is the week that Craig Thomson defended himself in Parliament, Schapelle Corby got clemency and…

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter