In December 1992 at Redfern, Paul Keating laid bare the failings of Australia in our treatment of our first peoples.

That searing honesty has, in my view, laid the basis for much of the effort of the past twenty seven years towards reconciliation, including that other very important speech, Kevin Rudds apology to the stolen generations.

Even more important was his personal shepherding of the legislation to give effect to the Mabo decision, against virulent opposition from the Liberal and National parties.

And we know there is so much more to do.

The indigenous Australians who spoke to us from the heart at Uluru knew this.

So let us do more than simply acknowledge the elders of this land, the Eora Nation. Let us commit ourselves to making a constitutionally enshrined voice a reality.

Fellow True Believers,

It is of course a huge honour to be delivering the first Keating lecture.

What a wonderful initiative by Jason Clare this Paul Keating lecture is. And the professionalism and passion he has brought to tonights event honouring Paul is representative of the professionalism and passion he brings to every element of being an MP. Its why he is such a valued colleague and Caucus member.

Developing a friendship with Paul has been one of the pleasures of my life.

I grew up watching him change the country, sending his considerable command of the English language and the Australian idiom into battle for the cause of economic reform.

Having him at the end of the phone on an often daily basis has been a great support to me. Even if the lines he sometimes suggest I use against the Liberals are, on balance sometimes little too robust to be employed.

Paul Keating and Bob Hawke formed the gold standard of Labor Government. Looking back, they made it look easy. But of course it wasnt easy. It was hard.

Hawke and Keating were giants of Australian political reform.

That the country is currently being run by policy pygmies makes their legacy even more impressive.

Lets compare like with like.

The Liberals have now been in power for more than six years.

So, the equivalent of 1989 for the Hawke-Keating Government.

By 1989, Hawke and Keating had floated the dollar.

Deregulated the banks.

Reduced tariffs.

Introduced the capital gains and fringe benefits taxes.

Created Medicare.

Re-formed and increased family assistance payments for low income families.

The Accord had been created.

School retention rates had been massively increased.

And the Sex Discrimination Act had been implemented

In six years have the Liberals achieved anything approaching any one, let alone all of these reforms?

No. Everyone knew what the Hawke-Keating Government was about. But the question is: what is the point of the Morrison Government?

And of the three prime ministers the Liberals have given us over the last six years, Scott Morrison is the worst of them.

He believes in nothing but himself.

He had a plan to win an election, but no plan for Australia.

He is, at his core, a charlatan who falls back on sound bites and scare, when the country needs passion and plans.

The thing about charlatans is this: time catches up with them.

But while I know his shortcomings will catch up with him, we know from history, including very recent history, we cant rely on the shortcomings of our opponents to provide the fodder for an election victory.

We will need to provide a compelling case. And as we build that case, we have the Keating legacy to call upon.

There is much talk of the Keating legacy and the need to re-enliven it.

No there is no stronger supporter of Labor governing in the Keating ethos than me.

Lets be clear about what that means.

Some who call for Labor to re-embrace the Keating legacy either dont understand it or deliberately misrepresent it.

The Keating agenda is not some pallid version of a Liberal Government, taking the hard edges of conservatism.

No.

Keatingism is about hard fought, bold reforms to improve the lot of working people.

Hawke and Keating appealed to the middle ground of Australian politics, but not with mediocre or timid policies.

To me, two words sum up Paul Keatings approach to policy and politics: Imagination and courage.

He imagined a new Australia. And he had the courage to implement it.

Of course, Keating as Treasurer broke down the sclerotic economy which served the interests of a few, but not the many.

He set up the nearly thirty years of economic growth which we have achieved since.

But it was about much more than that.

Closing down tax loop holes and improving the fairness of the tax system.

Investing in important social programs, creating new, worlds best community standards like Medicare and universal superannuation. The equity of the social security system was improved.

This part of the Keating agenda was opposed vociferously by our opponents, who sometimes now piously call on us to return to Keatingism.

Driving economic growth and reform was of course the important core of Keatingism.

But it was the core, not the whole.

Paul would be the first to say, his time in office was about much more than that.

It was about the Australian identity. Forging a more truly independent nation and voice in the world.

It was about nurturing our creative voices and cherishing our culture.

And about real, not just economic, engagement in our own region

And while Paul understood the power of market forces, he also understood their limits.

He wanted bargaining to occur at the enterprise level but there was no way he was ever going to deregulate industrial relations or even allow the Liberals under Hewson to do it.

Because he understood the dignity of work and the importance of society protecting that dignity through unions and appropriate regulation.

And while Paul enjoyed a stoush as much as anyone, and more than most, he also knew how to collaborate with good people for good policy, for the good of the many. His friendship and collaboration with Bill Kelty is well known. Less understood is that he also forged an understanding and partnership with the late Laurie Carmichael, the Secretary of the then Metal Workers Union. They were in their own different ways, radicals who knew that things had to change and the country would be better off if they collaborated in that change.

All these elements are important threads of Keatingism.

And all are important for us to embrace today, as then.

If Paul had won the 1996 election much more of the agenda would have been a reality.

But he didnt win in 1996 to keep implementing the agenda. It wasnt to be.

Nor did we win 2019. That wasnt to be either.

It is right and necessary that we all reflect on why we fell short in this years election.

We need to consider not so much what more we could have done, because everyone I know, from Bill Shorten down, worked about as doggedly as they could for a very long time to try and win the election.

But more what we all, including of course myself, could have done better.

Ive kept my own counsel about these things since the election both because theyve required a fair bit of reflection and also because I havent wanted to distract from the good work that Anthony Albanese and the team are doing to hold the Government to account.

But this reflection has to have purpose only: to maximise our chances of ridding Australia of this chronically under-performing government.

And tonight, I want to look forward. To draw on the inspiration of Paul Keatings public life to propose a framework for modern Labor, a new compact between Labor and the Australian people.

But first, a few words on the election.

Now, the election loss for Labor on May 18^th was surprising to many. Because all the advice and objective analysis was that we were reasonably on track to win.

But we shouldnt be so surprised.

I say this for two reasons: firstly because it is consistent with what has happened to progressive parties around the world.

And because it is symptomatic of a long term trend in the Labor vote.

What happened on May 18 is a sub-set of what has been happening around the developed world.

Donald Trump wasnt meant to win the US Presidency but he won on the support of low income voters in states like Iowa and Wisconsin, despite Hillary Clintons policies to help low income people.

Brexit wasnt predicted to win the vote in the UK. But it did, and it did with the support of traditional Labour voters in low socio-economic areas.

And despite the closer than expected result in 2017, the Tories actually lifted their share of the working class vote from 32% to 44%, with British Labour on just 42%. And much of the vote for the UKIP Independence and Brexit parties also comes from former Labour voters.

I could go on with examples, but suffice it to say, around the world, left of centre parties are struggling to win, because people of lower socio-economic status have lost faith with progressive politics to deliver for them, to deal with their real and burning grievances about growing inequality, risky job security and underemployment.

More and more, populist parties of the right are providing simplistic so called solutions.

We are facing a pandemic of populism.

On May 18, while Labors vote fell by 1.4%, the coalitions vote fell by 0.6%

But of course the combined One Nation and Clive Palmer vote lifted by more than 5 percentage points and then flowed back to their stable mates, the Liberal and National Parties.

Because of the Australian preferential system, a strong showing by parties like One Nation and Palmer is in the interests of the coalition because, far from splitting the conservative vote, the preferences flow strongly to them.

Of course, this issue was at its most acute in Queensland and Western Australia. Its true that if only the other states and territories counted, Labor would have a solid majority in the House of Representatives. But we wont form a Federal Government unless we come close to a majority of seats in Queensland and Western Australia.

And secondly, while this is where the problem was most acute, its not where it was confined to.

We suffered big swings in Western Sydney for example for similar reasons. A combination of cultural issues and concerns that our alternative wasnt the best way of dealing with challenges facing working people saw a surge in One Nation-Clive Palmer vote in Western Sydney. While Lindsay was the only seat we lost in Western Sydney, we cannot afford for the events of May 18 to be repeated or more seats and very good Members of Parliament, will be lost.

The lack of support from traditional Labor voters isnt a new thing. But it is a worsening thing.

And it wasnt through lack of attention or effort from Labor in the last election.

People who are in areas doing it tough, are sometimes called the flyover states, the flyover regions.

Well, they were far from that for Labor. Bill and the entire team spent huge amounts of time in regional Australia and in the suburbs, listening and responding, not just over the election campaign, but over the six year term. But time and attention isnt enough.

And our policy agenda was designed to improve the fairness of the system, to give people who have been forgotten by the political system a fairer chance.

But they werent convinced.

We didnt succeed in bringing our individual policies together in an overall narrative in a way which connected with, and re-assured, people who are battling.

Thats a reason we shouldnt be so surprised about the result on May 18. Deeply concerned, determined to change it, but not surprised.

Also, the result reflected a long term trend.

As Andrew Charlton has pointed out, the best predictor of Labors result in 2019 was the decline in Labors primary result over the last ten elections.

Have a look at this graph:



The Labor primary result has reduced on average by 1.3% at every single one of the last ten Federal elections.

In this election it declined by 1.4%. Bang-on trend.

The blips in 2007 and to a lesser degree 2016 dont change the fact that in no election since have we achieved the 44.9% that Paul achieved in 1993.

Now Im not the first to point these factors out.

Identifying the problem isnt the hardest bit.

Its identifying the plan which will turn it around which is trickier.

And the Keating legacy provides a road-map for us to do so.

What Paul and Bob offered the Australian people was essentially a compact, an Australian New Deal.

The economy would be opened up. Competitive forces would be unleashed. The economy would be grown.

But the dividends would be shared.

Universal health care would be created, superannuation would be opened up for the many not the few, education to Year 12 would become the norm not the exception and new universities would be built to massively improve access to tertiary education.

This was the compact.

And so now, as our Party recovers from an unexpected defeat our party faces a fork in the road: do we retreat or do we advance?

The Liberals have been quick to give us some friendly advice. That is: we should be more like them.

They suggest we drop a big agenda and become a pale version of themselves.

Well they would say that, wouldnt they?

As my friend and colleague Brendan OConnor has put it eloquently Only fools would listen to what their opponents think they should do.

The Liberals want us to shrink into a ball and be more like them, as unimaginative and unambitious as they are. That would suit them.

Because if we give the people a choice between proper Liberal and Liberal-light at the next election, the people are likely to go for the real thing as opposed to the imitation.

This has been a false debate: Should Labor have a big policy agenda or a small one? To me, this isnt the right question.

It is how do we frame our policy agenda to reflect our long term mission to improve the lot of working people? And in turn, earn their support?

To me the key message of the 2019 election for Labor is not that we need to go the people with a smaller, less ambitious message.

It is that we need to go the people with a message that better connects with their concerns and their hopes for themselves and our country.

Just as Hawke and Keating offered the Australian people a compact, so Labor can offer a new compact for these troubled times.

The challenges of these times are different, but we can still draw on the inspiration of Keating to help us design the new compact.

Labor in the 1980s was faced with the challenge of declining national income as a result of a sclerotic economy.

Now we face new challenges.
Like the overwhelming evidence of catastrophic climate change caused by human activity, that must be dealt with.

But the real fear of many in traditional industries and resources is that calls for climate change action are code for a plan to remove their jobs with vague promises of retraining in jobs in tourism or renewable energy.

As well intentioned as it is, the term just transition makes it sound like workers in these industries are an after-thought, to be compensated for the loss of their job, not to be invested in so they will have an ongoing livelihood and real value in our society.

We also face rising income inequality brought about the deliberate emasculation of unions which has led to growing concerns about the fundamental fairness of our society.

And growing concentration of economic activity in our cities at the expense of our regions, a result of both the end of the mining boom and the link between population density and entrepreneurial activity, which means that people who love inner city life and the risks and thrills of starts up are living in a golden era but those love our regions and value the certainties of a more traditional economic model feel challenged.

Relatedly, the relentless march of technology which will destroy as well as create jobs, and causes great job insecurity for many.

And so, modern Labor can propose a new compact, that we will deal robustly with these modern challenges.

Walking away from these challenges, including climate change, is not an option.

Hawke and Keating didnt walk away from the challenges of their time, and nor should we.

No. We do need to tackle the challenges of our age and improve the fairness and fabric of our society.

But, as we do so, we need to offer a new compact. And compact put simply is this: we will tackle the challenges of our time. But for Australians who feel left behind, who worry about what changes mean for them, their community and their family will be front and centre in our policy agenda.

We will use the power of government to invest in every Australian to help them navigate this changing world.

Now around the world, there are some interesting ideas being proposed about how to tackle these issues: pre-distribution and the Green New Deal are two. Each have their pros and cons, and we can certainly draw on the ideas that inspire them.

But it wall to us to craft a uniquely Australian solution, just as our predecessors in the 1980s did.

Part of that compact is ensuring continued economic growth.

Labor was the Party of economic growth under Keating.

It was the Party of economic growth under Rudd and Swan, steering Australia through the global financial crisis.

We must remain the party of economic growth it is a central part of Labors mission. It turns aspiration into reality and is the most effective poverty alleviation program ever invented.

Now, economic growth was an issue in the recent election campaign.

The Liberals had a glib slogan but no plan.

Their Plan A, an unfunded $60 billion company tax cut designed to trickle down to investment was rightly torpedoed by Parliament. After that, they had nothing.

The implications of their lack of plan for growth are there for all to see: anaemic growth.

By contrast, Labor went to the election promising an Australian Investment Guarantee - an accelerated depreciation allowance to get investment and growth going again.

Anthony was right to last week call on the Government to adopt this plan now to get growth going.

Our AIG was part of a comprehensive plan for growth which included giving the country a proper and stable energy policy, an advanced manufacturing fund, reversing cuts to penalty rates to help get consumption going and much better investment in skills.

Labor also went to the election with a plan for growth with our neighbouring Asian countries. This plan was the most comprehensive Asian engagement strategy ever proposed by an Opposition, Future Asia.

If we are going to win the next election, we will need to unequivocally establish our credentials as the superior party of economic growth.

Voters listen to what a party is talking about as much or even more than what the party is saying. If commitment to jobs and growth isnt front of centre in our retail offering, people will draw their own conclusions about what we prioritise, and they will think that their jobs and economic security isnt foremost amongst our priorities. Clearly we needed a bigger emphasis on our pro-growth policies in our economic narrative. Anthony and Jim will need the full support of our entire team to put what will no doubt be good policies to foster economic growth high on our agenda and our offering to the people.

And on economic policy, we know from close analysis of the election results that many people who were actually being asked by Labor to make a greater contribution through the closing down of tax loopholes and other measures actually swung to Labor.

But we have to also accept that the Liberal scare campaign about tax did worry voters who depend on a strong economy for their job. And despite the modest increase in the tax to GDP ratio under Labor, and the fact that Labor would have remained a low taxing country by international standards, the scare campaign by the Liberals worked.

Some of the revenue we raised was to pay for new spending. Some was because we had a better fiscal bottom line and plan to pay down debt.

The spending in health and education in particular was a very important part of Labors agenda, which needed to be paid for. I was particularly proud for example, of our election commitment of the $2.3 billion Pensioner Dental Plan, which would have provided Medicare dental coverage to 3 million older Australians.

Going forward, a commitment to social justice can and must partner with a fiscally rigorous, prudent approach. New spending commitments arent the only way to improve social outcomes. Institutional reforms, incentives and rigorous insistence on high standards are sometimes better and at the very least, must accompany spending decisions.

Now I want to turn to values and identity politics.

Sometimes Labor is accused of playing identity politics too much.

But the reality is, the Liberals play identity politics much more than us, and much more effectively.

Political pitches which appeal to people of particular cultures, appealing to the values of their identity rather than the calculation of their economic best interest is something the Liberals have come to excel in.

The Labor Party is used to arguing the economic merits of our propositions. We are about improving the living standards of ordinary Australians, so we look at things through an economic prism.

But the Liberals, especially under Scott Morrison, have made an art-form of framing proposals and attacks though a cultural prism.

Let me give you an example.

During the election campaign, we proposed a perfectly sensible proposal to facilitate more electric cars being sold in Australia. Australia has a low penetration of electric cars in our market, and as a result they are more expensive, denying Australians effective choice. Mark Butler did good policy work to develop a better electric car market, bringing down the price of electric vehicles and giving Australians more choice.

And yet, we soon had a cultural attack on our hands in a way few of us saw coming.

The Liberals reached peak hyperbole, but it was effective.

They declared that cheaper electric cars were an assault on tradies and four wheel drives. We are going to stand-by our tradies they declared.

The Liberals were keen to see the decline in the blue collar support for Labor be cemented in and to play identity politics in a hardball fashion.

We need to counter this flagrant identity politics engaged in by our opponents with a full throated exposition of our values. We need to be very clear with people who work hard and who are concerned about their job security, the economic security of their families and the future of their communities, wherever they are in Australia, including regional Australia.

We are for them.

We were formed to improve their lives.

And we havent forgotten our mission.

We believe in work and creating jobs.

We believe in labour. We believe in it so much, we took it as our partys name.

Well intentioned hashtag campaigns that make social media activists feel good about their morality, can make hard working Australians feel alienated and exposed.

I talked before about imagination and courage being the hallmarks of Pauls approach to politics.

Of course, the other thing he regularly reminds me of is the need to be indignant.

To be angry, on behalf of the people we represent.

And to tell them they are right to be angry.

The people of Outback Queensland are right to be angry that, in spite of twenty six years of uninterrupted economic growth, their unemployment rate is 14%, while Sutherland has an unemployment rate of just 1.9%

The people of Townsville are right to be angry that despite strong national tourism figures, one in five of their young people cant get a job.

The people of Tasmania are right to be angry that after almost three decades of economic growth, a quarter of all Tasmanians live in poverty.

Im indignant that the people of Western Sydney continue to suffer higher rates of cancer, diabetes and other chronic conditions than wealthier Australians. And Im angry that wealthier Australians live on average six years longer than poor Australians.

We need to be indignant on all their behalves.

We need to explain clearly and passionately that cutting off trade or less immigration is no answer for these and other problems.

And then we need to outline our policy solutions.

We need to recognise the hurt of people who in many cases have voted Labor for many years but who feel the economy isnt working for them, and a vote for a populist party like One Nation or Palmer United is a cry for action.

The people who vote for populist parties arent voting for no change. They are voting for big change.
People arent voting for Palmer and Hanson in the belief that their lives will be made better. Rather that things cant get any worse with them.

But we just have to convince them that the change we offer is superior to the snake oil offered by populists.

As David Goodhart has put it, we must be tough on populism and tough on the causes of populism.
Here in Bankstown is where young Paul Keating first got indignant and where the seeds of his plan to improve Australia first stirred.

Bankstown, redolent of so many of the communities that I and the other Members of Parliament here tonight live in and represent.

Suburbs full of hard workers unsure about the changes in the world and how tackling some issues might affect them and their families.

Its not just that pathway to government lies in the suburbs and regions, although that is of course true. It is also that within these suburbs we can find the inspiration to renew and refresh Labors governing mission. I find inspiration almost daily in the suburban community I live in and represent. Inspiration from people working very hard, who have their concerns about where Australia is going and who deserve a fairer go. These people inspire me to be a better member of parliament every day, and they can also inspire a revised Labor mission. Our compact is with them, and with the millions of people like them through the suburbs and regions of Australia.

Friends.

My main message tonight is that while a period of introspection is justified, Labor must fight back.
And we can draw on the lessons of history as we do so.

We draw on Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. They didnt choose between saving the Franklin River and creating thirty years of economic growth: they did both.

They didnt choose between improving the lot of working people and introducing social reforms like the Sex Discrimination Act. They knew these things werent a choice, but essential complimentary features of a robust agenda to improve our country.

They didnt decide whether to create a Human Rights Commission or float the dollar. They got on with the job.

Paul Keating didnt choose between investing in communities with Working Nation and nurturing our national voices with Creative Nation. He knew he could and should do both.

The 1980s and 1990s were an uncertain time.

Labor offered then a compact with the Australian people.

We live in, if anything, more uncertain times.

We can likewise offer a new compact.

I have no doubt, that under Anthonys leadership we can successfully offer that compact and more importantly, implement it from Government. And ensure that no-one, absolutely no-one, is left behind as we do so.

ENDS