famous speeches in australian history

Executive Summary

Men and women of australia: our greatest modern speeches.

(Penguin, 2014)

Purchase here

Even in our digital age, speeches remain the principal currency of public life. There is  no better way to argue a case or sway an audience.

In Men and Women of Australia!, speechmaker and former prime ministerial adviser Michael Fullilove has gathered the finest Australian speeches delivered since Federation – speeches that have inspired us and defined us as a nation. Each one is a time capsule, a window onto a debate or controversy from our history.

Fully revised and updated, with perceptive introductions to each speech and a foreword by Graham Freudenberg, this edition includes Kevin Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations and Julia Gillard's Misogyny speech – two speeches that captured the country's imagination. Among others are Noel Pearson's Hope Vale speech, Les Carlyon on Fromelles, Geoffrey Rush on acting the goat, Tim Winton on our oceans, Tony Abbott's speech on closing the gap, and Malcolm Turnbull's tribute to Robert Hughes. Also included are speeches by notable visitors to Australia – leading figures of the twentieth century such as Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Drawn from politics, history, sport and culture, Men and Women of Australia! is the definitive collection of Australian speeches.

'A highly readable collection that nicely balances seriousness and wit.' – The Age

“In the age of the shrinking sound bite, speeches matter more than ever. This cracker collection of the pithy, the personal and the political shows why.” – Peter Garrett

"A fascinating collection" – Sydney Morning Herald "Several collections of, and books about, Australian speeches have appeared in recent years. Fullilove’s is… the best and most personal. It’s cleverly organised, includes some surprising gems and, as a bonus, sits nicely in your hands." – TIME "This excellent collection of speeches reaffirms just how powerful the spoken word can be. Former prime ministerial adviser Michael Fullilove has compiled an inspired collection of oratory that seamlessly spans time, place and theme… this is Australia in the palm of your hand." – Melbourne Herald-Sun "If you must buy a book not written by me this Christmas, you could do worse than get the one edited and compiled by Michael Fullilove, entitled “Men and Women of Australia!” Our Greatest Modern Speeches. My only criticism is that a book of such class should actually have been encased in leather and released with hoo ha befitting the words within." – Peter Fitzsimons, Sun-Herald

Subscribe to stay up to date

• Skip to navigation
• Skip to content

‘To the last man’—Australia’s entry to war in 1914

• Parliamentary Library Briefing Book

31 July 2014

PDF version [ 229KB ]

Executive summary

On 31 July 1914 in an election speech at Colac in Victoria, the Opposition Leader Andrew Fisher (ALP) famously declared that ‘should the worst happen, after everything has been done that honour will permit, Australians will stand beside the mother country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling’.

• Only days later, Britain declared war against Germany on 4 August 1914. The spark that lit the fuse of war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and the chain of events leading to world war reflected the extremely complex relations between European countries in the lead up to the First World War.
• It is unlikely that Fisher or his contemporaries had any idea of the human and financial sacrifice of Australia’s commitment. Overall, 324,000 members served overseas with the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) and of these, over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner. 
• In 1914, the British Imperial Government remained responsible for the foreign policy of the empire, including declarations of war, so the British Government of Herbert Asquith did not need to consult any of the colonial governments when making its declaration of war. The Australian Government’s role was therefore only to determine the extent of its military contribution to the Imperial forces.
• However, while Australia’s constitutional independence from Britain has long since been clear, then as now, parliament has no formal constitutional role in decisions to go war. The executive power of section 61 of the Australian Constitution is taken to include all the ‘prerogatives of the Crown under the English common law’ including the power to make treaties with the governments of other countries and making war and peace.

Introduction

Declarations of war, a blank cheque, a separate declaration of war, executive and the parliament, further reading.

Fisher’s speech occurred in the midst of an election campaign scheduled for 5 September 1914, in what was Australia’s first double dissolution election. [1] When Britain declared war against Germany on 4 August 1914, Sir Joseph Cook (LIB) was Prime Minister of Australia. Following the September 1914 election, Fisher took office (for the third time) and his government pursued a policy of fully supporting Britain’s war effort.

This Research Paper considers the context of Fisher’s declaration by briefly outlining the steps leading to the outbreak of the war and the costs to Australia by the end of hostilities. It then examines two particular issues of relevance in the parliamentary environment: the extent of an independent Australian foreign policy and why Britain’s declaration of war was considered to automatically include Australia, and second, the role of the parliament in committing Australia to war.

The growing dangers arising from nationalist and territorial disputes in the Balkans had been recognised as early as the 1878 Congress of Berlin, when German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck famously noted:

Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal ... A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all ... I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where ... Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off.

Relations between European countries in the lead-up to the First World War were extremely complex and in a state of flux. They reflected the interconnected tensions arising from the growing European dominance of a unified Germany, the falling tide of Ottoman power and its loss of European territories in the first Balkan war, Russian ambitions for influence and territory in the Bosphorus, and rising nationalist ambitions among Balkan nations triggering instability in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [2]

The specific events that provided Bismarck’s spark are well-known. On 28 June 1914, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife Sophie, were assassinated by Serbian nationalists during a visit to the Bosnian city of Sarajevo, triggering a domino effect of alliance commitments and declarations of war.

Believing correctly that Serbian officials were involved in the plot, Austria-Hungary delivered to Serbia a ten-point ultimatum. When Serbia agreed to only eight of the ten demands, Austria-Hungary declared war on 28 July 1914. In support of its Serbian ally, the Russian Empire ordered a partial mobilisation one day later on 29 July. Germany mobilised on 30 July, and Russia responded by declaring a full mobilisation that same day. Germany issued an ultimatum to Russia to demobilise within 12 hours, and subsequently declared war against Russia on 1 August 1914.

Germany’s war plan was based on the threat of a two-front war against both France and Russia (due to their mutual alliance commitments), and relied on a quick victory over France before turning east against Russia. When it mobilised against Russia, Germany therefore also demanded that France remain neutral.

Germany subsequently declared war on France on 3 August. On 4 August, after Belgium refused to permit German troops to cross its borders into France, Germany declared war on Belgium. Britain delivered an ultimatum to Germany that Belgium be kept neutral, and following an ‘unsatisfactory reply’ declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914.

On 3 August Sir Edward Grey, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, delivered a statement to the House of Commons on the situation in Europe:

To-day events move so rapidly that it is exceedingly difficult to state with technical accuracy the actual state of affairs, but it is clear that the peace of Europe cannot be preserved. Russia and Germany … have declared war upon each other … [France is] involved in it because of their obligation of honour under a definite alliance with Russia … .

For Grey, the question of the neutrality of Belgium was key, given Britain’s ‘honour and interest’ in upholding the 1839 Treaty of London:

We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war whether we are in it or whether we stand aside … .

Mobilisation of the Fleet has taken place; mobilisation of the Army is taking place; but we have as yet taken no engagement, because I do feel that in the case of a European conflagration such as this, unprecedented, with our enormous responsibilities in India and other parts of the Empire, or in countries in British occupation, with all the unknown factors, we must take very carefully into consideration the use which we make of sending an Expeditionary Force out of the country until we know how we stand … .

There is but one way in which the Government could make certain at the present moment of keeping outside this war, and that would be that it should immediately issue a proclamation of unconditional neutrality. We cannot do that. We have made … commitment to France … which prevents us from doing that. We have got the consideration of Belgium which prevents us also from any unconditional neutrality, and, without those conditions absolutely satisfied and satisfactory, we are bound not to shrink from proceeding to the use of all the forces in our power. [3]

On the centenary of Andrew Fisher’s speech, and in the context of what followed, his immediate and unqualified declaration of support for Britain is i n teresting to us now for three particular reasons: a ‘blank cheque’ policy to support Britain’s war effort, the declaration of war by Britain on behalf of the dominions and the role of Australia’s Parliament.

First, it is unlikely that Fisher had any idea just how costly the human and financial sacrifice of this blank cheque policy would be for Australia.

Overall, 324,000 members served overseas with the Australian Imperial Force (AIF). As the Australian War Memorial states, for Australia, the First World War remains our most costly conflict in terms of deaths and casualties. From a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men signed up to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and the AIF, while 2,139 women served with the Australian Army Nursing Service and 130 with the Queen Alexandra Imperial Military Nursing Service. [4]

By war’s end, over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner. [5] This compares with around 700,000 British, 60,000 Canadians and 16,000 New Zealanders killed. [6]

Australia also had the dubious distinction of suffering the highest proportional losses of any of the national forces within the British Empire at 19 per cent losses of the forces committed and 65 per cent of those embarked. [7] [8] The casualties were still being counted during the 1930s. By then, another 60,000 had died from wounds or illnesses caused by the war. [9]

According to Professor Joan Beaumont, the deaths caused by the First World War, (and those caused by the influenza epidemic that immediately followed) changed the demographics of the Australian population:

The 1933 national census revealed 21,500 fewer men aged 35-39 years—who had been 12-20 in 1914-1919—than in the 30-34 year old cohort. The gender balance of Australian society changed too. Whereas in 1911 there were 109 men for every 100 women between 25 and 44 years of age, in 1933 there were 98 men for every 100 women between 35 and 39. [10]

The costs of the war to Australia were also financial, with estimated total costs of between £350 million and £377 million, of which 70 per cent was borrowed and the rest came from taxes. [11] This equates to a figure in the order of £170 billion in modern values, although this unsurprisingly seems small compared to Britain’s estimated war costs of £3,251 billion. [12] [13]

The costs and implications of the war carried on well past the end of hostilities. As well as the debt, Australia faced the substantial task of bringing home, demobilising and resettling the large army it had sent overseas. This task created considerable administrative challenges, which were driven by both the moral imperative to look after all the volunteers who had served, but also the fear the returned soldiers could become a disruptive and subversive force in Australian society. [14]

The size and complexity of this task necessitated the creation of a comprehensive system of social welfare, medical, pension, and soldier settler and pension schemes that significantly changed the role of the federal government and its responsibilities in relation to the states. [15]

A second notable issue is that Australia had no choice about whether to go to war. Notwithstanding that the Australian Constitution provided that the Commonwealth Parliament could legislate with respect to both defence and external affairs (subsections 51(vi) and (xxix) respectively), and the Executive had the broader executive power of section 61, the Australian Government knew that the British Imperial Government remained responsible for the foreign policy of the empire including declarations of war and the power to enter treaties. This reflected the legal status of all of Britain’s self-governing colonies, which also went to war: Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa and remained the case in Australia until the enactment of the Statute of Westminster (Adoption) Act 1942 (Cth) . [16] As former High Court Chief Justice Mason noted, ‘the Constitution did not in 1901 enable Australia to enter into a treaty with a foreign State or make a declaration of war’. Mason quotes English constitutional lawyer Sir Athur Berriedale:

It is perfectly clear that in international law the whole of the Empire is at war if the United Kingdom is at war and that it lies in the hands of the Imperial Government to declare war or make a peace. …

even in 1916, Isaacs J stated that:

“the creation of a state of war and the establishment of peace necessarily reside in the Sovereign himself as head of the Empire”. [17]

The extent of Australia’s capacity for independent foreign policy was discussed in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth power to make and implement treaties :

At federation, in 1901, the power to enter into treaties was possessed by the Imperial Crown because the United Kingdom Government remained responsible for the conduct of Australia’s foreign relations … . [18]

Rather than foreign affairs more broadly, Australia (and the other dominions) were given a degree of autonomy in relation to commercial treaties. Although the colonies did not have the power to enter into commercial treaties, as this could only be done by the Imperial Government, they did, have the relatively limited power not to be bound by commercial treaties to which Britain became a party. [19]

So it was that the British Government of Herbert Asquith did not need to consult any of the colonial governments when making its declaration of war on Germany on 4 August 1914. [20]

The Australian Government’s role was therefore only to determine the extent of its military contribution to the Imperial forces. In this context, on 3 August the federal Cabinet made two offers to the British Government: to place the Australian fleet under Admiralty control and to despatch an expeditionary force overseas. [21]

Although some Australian Labor Party members and trade unionists (particularly those of Irish descent) expressed concern at the outset of the war about the level of Australia’s involvement and lack of consultation from Britain, it was only later in the war, and particularly after the heavy losses of Australian troops, that there was a more widespread sense in both Australia and the other dominions that their interests were not always the same as Britain’s. This led to increasing expectations that the Australian Government would be involved in decision-making. This saw the dominions being invited to attend meetings of an Imperial War Conference and an Imperial War Cabinet, as well as, after the war, Australia having separate representation at the Versailles Peace Conference.

However, as Professor Beaumont points out, this was viewed as nationhood within the British Empire—not separate from it. [22]

A third issue that continues to be controversial today is the extent to which the Australian Parliament, as distinct from the executive government, does or should play a role in decisions to commit troops to conflict.

Under the Australian Constitution, the power to declare war is the prerogative of the executive arm of government, which as noted above, was the British Imperial Government for the purposes of foreign policy in 1914. This reflects the view that the executive power of section 61 is taken to include all the ‘prerogatives of the Crown under the English common law’ including the power to make treaties with the governments of other countries and making war and peace. [23]

As a matter of constitutional law, Parliament has no formal decision-making role.

This is reflected in the fact that there was no debate in parliament before Australia’s entry into the war (noting though, that parliament was prorogued at the time). Similarly, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announced on 3 September 1939 that Britain was at war with Germany, Australia was again automatically at war, with Australia’s Prime Minister Robert Menzies announcing on the radio (one hour and fifteen minutes later): ‘it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war’. [24]

Nevertheless, while parliamentary approval is not legally required, a democratic government in the Westminster tradition needs, as a matter of political reality, to enjoy the confidence of the lower house. [25] As Lindell points out, parliament can move a motion of no-confidence in the government, but also has the power to ‘legislate to regulate and limit the exercise of prerogative powers’ such as those used to declare war, as well as continued control over the expenditure of money to fight the war, and the power to hold inquiries under section 49 of the Constitution. These could investigate and report into the deployment of forces and the conduct of operations. [26]

Accordingly, there are a number of times in Australia’s history that parliament has debated the issue. As Prime Minister Howard said in the context of the war in Iraq in 2003, while ‘the decision lies with the executive of government: the cabinet’ he ‘nevertheless [thought it] appropriate that the parliament, at the first opportunity, have the chance to debate this motion. It is essential that the reasons for that decision be made plain to the representatives of the people and that they have a full opportunity to debate them and to have their views recorded’. [27]

This statement neatly describes the historical practice. As the Library’s paper on Parliamentary involvement in declaring war and deploying forces overseas shows, in the First World War the Governor General opened parliament on 8 October 1914, and the parliament debated a motion to agree to the Governor General’s address. In that instance, the government’s declaration to support Britain’s war effort with personnel and funds received bipartisan support in the Parliament, which reflected widespread public support.

Similarly in the Second World War, Parliament met on 6 September 1939, three days after Australia’s declaration of war. Prime Minister Menzies tabled a White Paper and delivered a ministerial statement on the war in Europe. [28]

The issue of parliament’s role in going to war remains periodically contentious. Minor parties have four times introduced Bills to remove the exclusive power of the executive to commit Australia to war: the Australian Democrats in 1985, and the Greens in 2003, 2008 and 2014. [29]

J Beaumont, Broken Nation: Australian in the Great War , Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 2013

C Clarke, Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914 , Penguin, Sydney, 2013

M Glenny, The Balkans: 1804—2012: Nationalism, war and the great powers , Granta Books, London, 2012

P Ham, 1914: The Year the world ended , Random House, North Sydney, 2014

M MacMillan, The war that ended peace: How Europe abandoned peace for the First World War , Profile Books, London, 2013

D McKeown and R Jordan, Parliamentary involvement in declaring war and deploying forces overseas , Background Note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 22 March 2010

Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2008 [No. 2] , The Senate, Canberra, 2008

Senate, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth power to make and implement treaties , The Senate, Canberra, November 1995

[1] .      G Souter, Acts of parliament , Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988, p. 137.

[2] .      The relative importance of these influences, let alone attribution of ‘fault’ are still hotly debated a century later. Several of the many recent contributions to the debate include: C Clarke, Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914 , Penguin, Sydney, 2013; P Ham, 1914: The year the world ended , Random House, North Sydney, 2014; M MacMillan, The war that ended peace: How Europe abandoned peace for the First World War , Profile Books, London, 2014.

[3] .      House of Commons, 3 August 1914, p. 1824.

[4] .      Australian War Memorial, First World War 1914—18 , www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww1/ , accessed 23 July 2014.

[5] .      Australian War Memorial, Researching Australian military service: First World War, nurses , www.awm.gov.au/research/infosheets/ww1_nurses/ , accessed 29 July 2014.

[6] .      J Beaumont, ‘Unitedly we have fought: imperial loyalty and the Australian war effort’, International Affairs , 90:2 (2014) p. 398, quoting Statistics of the military effort of the British empire during the Great War 1914—1920 , p. 756.

[7] .      Ibid., p. 398.

[8] .      Anzac Day Organisation, www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/anecdotes/stats01.html , accessed 23 July 2014. The vast majority of the casualties were suffered by the Army. The RAN’s casualties included 171 fatalities—108 Australians and 63 officers and men on loan from the Royal Navy, with less than a third the result of enemy action. D Stevens, The Royal Australian Navy , VIC: Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 2001.

[9] .      L Carlyon, The Great War , Pan MacMillan, Sydney, 2007, p. 752

[10] .    J Beaumont, Broken Nation: Australia in the Great War , Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 2013 (eBook edition) location 8953.

[11] .    L Carlyon, op. cit., p. 759.

[12] .    The estimate is necessarily very imprecise, www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/relativevalue.php , accessed 23 July 2014.

[13] .    Total British war debt 1914—1918, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zqhxvcw accessed 24 July 2014.

[14] .    Beaumont, Broken Nation , op. cit., location 8544.

[15] .    Ibid., location 8546.

[16] .    A Mason, ‘The Australian Constitution 1901—1988, Australian Law Journal , Volume 62, October 1988, p. 753.

[17] .    Ibid., p. 753.

[18] .    Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Trick or treaty? Commonwealth power to make and implement treaties , The Senate, Canberra, November 1995, para. 4.7.

[19] .    Ibid., para 4.10.

[20] .    Beaumont, ‘Unitedly we have fought’, op. cit., p. 399.

[21] .    Souter, op. cit., p. 138; Beaumont, op. cit., p. 399.

[22] .    Beaumont, Ibid., at p. 411.

[23] .    G Lindell, ‘The constitutional authority to deploy Australian military forces in the Coalition war against Iraq’, Constitutional Law and Policy Review , Vo. 5 No. 3., November 2002, p. 47.

[24] .    D McKeown and R Jordan, Parliamentary involvement in declaring war and deploying forces overseas , Background Note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2010, p. 6.

[25] .    Lindell, op. cit., p. 47.

[26] .    Ibid., p. 47.

[27] .    Quoted in G Williams, ‘The power to go to war: Australia in Iraq, Public Law Reporter , (2004) 15 PLR, p.5, at p. 6. The wording of motion moved is interesting. In Howard’s case it was ‘that the House take note of the paper’. The motion most frequently used is ‘that the paper [ministerial statement etc] be printed’. However the key point is that the Government of the day has never asked the Parliament to endorse its actions per se.

[28] .    McKeown and Jordan, op. cit., p. 6.

[29] .    Ibid., p. 3.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to [email protected] .

This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.

• Work of the Senate
• Dynamic Red
• Seating plan
• House of Representatives
• House of Representatives chamber and business documents
• Live Minutes
• House of Representatives Seating Plan

Get informed

• News & Events
• Watch, Read, Listen
• About Parliament
• Education Resources
• Parliamentary Library
• International Program
• Bills before Parliament
• Assented Bills of previous Parliaments
• Tariff Proposals
• Legislative Instruments

Get involved

• Getting involved in Parliamentary Committees
• Connect with us
• Contact Parliament House

Visit Parliament

• Things to Do
• Art at Parliament
• Plan your Visit
• Media Rules and Filming Applications

Website features

• My Parliament - Log in
• Remote Users - Log in
• ParlInfo Search
• APH website survey
• A - Z Index

Parliamentary Departments

• Department of the Senate
• Department of the House of Representatives
• Department of Parliamentary Services
• Parliamentary Budget Office

Scheduled maintenance outage 8pm Thursday 19 September to 11am Friday 20 September (AEST) . Logins, new National Library registrations and some Catalogue functions will be unavailable during the outage. We apologise for any inconvenience.

Great Speeches

A great speech can turn the tide of history, capture emotions and speak to generations. A great speaker can use their words to convey feelings, inspire courage and passion and bring the audience with them. Whether solemn or uplifting - or a mix of both - powerful speeches provide a sense of connection and reach people’s hearts at critical times. 

The National Library’s oral history and folklore collection features the voices of many of Australia’s greatest speakers talking at - and about - moments and issues that defined this country and who we are. Listening to the speeches allows us to connect intimately with the speakers in an immediate and evocative way. Here, are some highlights held in the Library’s collection.

Prime Minister Robert Menzies, 1939

Prime Minister R.G. Menzies delivering the radio broadcast of the Declaration of War, 3 September, 1939,  nla.cat-vn7131063

On 3 September 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies had the grim task of informing the Australian people that the country was entering the Second World War. The First World War had taken a devastating toll on the country with more than 60,000 Australians dead and countless others dealing with ongoing physical and psychological wounds.  Letting the nation know that they faced a second global conflict was an immensely difficult duty. Menzies began with these infamous words:

“Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of the persistence of Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.”

Menzies’ speech set the tone for the difficult and uncertain years ahead. Menzies himself acknowledged openly that “no harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.”

Listen to his full speech at the National Library of Australia

Prime Minister John Curtin, 1941

Autographed portrait of John Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia , 1941-1945,  nla.cat-vn3600319

In 1941, the third year of the conflict, Prime Minister John Curtin made a national broadcast  to let the country know that a state of war now existed between Australia and Japan and the country faced “its darkest hour”, drawing ever closer geographically to the nation. Listeners grasped that invasion could be a real possibility as Curtin asked Australians for:

“Your courage, your physical and mental ability, your inflexible determination that we, as a nation of free people, shall survive.”

Curtin formal educational opportunities were cut short at the age of thirteen but he constantly sought opportunities to learn all he could about communication and his powerful wartime speeches provide testament to those efforts. 

Neville Bonner, 1983 - 1985

Greg Barrett, Portrait of Neville Bonner , 1993,  nla.cat-vn2141338

One of the great political orators of the twentieth century in this country was Neville Bonner, a Jagera man who was the first Aboriginal Australian to become a member of Australian Parliament. In an interview he gave to Pat Shaw , he spoke movingly about the impact of the 1967 referendum, the deep and abiding connection that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people maintained with the land and the distance yet to be traversed before Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experienced true equality in this country. Reflecting on the 1967 referendum, Bonner emphasised “it was the highest vote ever recorded in Australia to carry something that was proposed in a referendum where it referred to the Australian people, the highest vote ever recorded.” He continued:

“The Australian people gave notice to the Australian government that they believed that the Aboriginal people should be counted in the census, and that the federal government should take responsibility for the advancement of the Indigenous people of this country, both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.”

Listen to the full interview online

Anne Summers, 1985

Craig MacKenzie, Portrait of Anne Summers at the National Library of Australia, 27 October, 2013,  nla.cat-vn6382332 ;  Drusilla Modjeska, Six children play in the front yard of the Elsie Women's Refuge supervised by a woman, Glebe , 1974,  nla.cat-vn3997705

Anne Summers has been a long-standing advocate for the rights of women and helped set up Elsie – Australia’s very first refuge for women who had experienced domestic violence – in 1974. In a  speech she gave to the National Press Club in 1985 , she spoke with all the passion, intellect and conviction that had made her a leading advocate for women. She drew attention to the treatment of women in society, gains made, as well as issues still remaining to be addressed. She said:

“I’m proud to have been involved in the direct action which led to the starting up of Elsie. A year later there were eleven refuges. Ten years later, federal and state governments contribute $16 million towards the running of 170 refuges. It is a terrible indictment of our society that so many are needed. The country now has an annual capacity of 1 million bed nights and they are all fully utilised.” 

Listen to the full speech online

The spoken word has the power to draw people together, to foster courage and resolution at times of enormous difficulties and build movements for a fairer and more equal Australia. Amongst more than 54,000 hours of oral history and folklore recordings are the voices of so many Australians – some well-known and others less well-known – who have made their mark on history through the conviction and content of their speech. Which words resonate with you?

The National Library of Australia acknowledges Australia’s First Nations Peoples – the First Australians – as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of this land and gives respect to the Elders – past and present – and through them to all Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Cultural Notification

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website contains a range of material which may be considered culturally sensitive including the records of people who have passed away.

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

• Our network

This was published 9 years ago

The speech that changed Australia

It was the speech that helped change the face of australia. neil mcmahon begins our sunday age summer series charting the waves of immigration that have enriched the nation., by neil mcmahon, save articles for later.

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

For a girl whose family was at the vanguard of an Australian revolution, Gabrielle Wang's childhood memories are remarkably commonplace. Growing up, she neither fully understood where she came from, nor fully grasped where she was or where she might fit in.

The speech that changed Australia: Arthur Calwell.

"My greatest wish," she says, "was to be white.

Today, a successful children's book author based in Melbourne, she has embraced her family's story and used it as inspiration for her own books, using fiction to reflect the rich reality of modern Australia.

Wanted to be Aussie: Gabrielle Wang's great-grandfather came from China to the Victorian goldfields in the 1850s. She is holding a hand-coloured photograph of her mother. Credit: Simon O'Dwyer

But things were different when she was a child. Wang's family history in many ways straddles old and new Australia - her maternal great-grandfather a Chinese migrant to the Victorian goldfields in the 1850s; her father a migrant after World War II, when the country officially embarked on its most challenging and transforming nation-building adventure.

This December marks 70 years since Australians first learned of the revolution to come.

In the dying days of 1944 Arthur Calwell, the information minister in the Curtin government, first flagged to a war-weary populace the dramatic policy shift that would come to define Australia in the years ahead. Till then, it had been largely a secret discussion - among politicians and bureaucrats and academics - but Calwell was laying the groundwork to win public acceptance of a change he believed was absolutely necessary, but which never promised to be easy.

Eight months later the man who had just been appointed Australia's first immigration minister declared in a momentous parliamentary speech: "If Australians have learned one lesson from the Pacific War it is surely that we cannot continue to hold our island continent for ourselves and our descendants unless we greatly increase our numbers. We are about 7 million people and we hold 3 million square miles [7.7 million square kilometres] of this Earth surface ... much development and settlement have yet to be undertaken. Our need to undertake it is urgent and imperative if we are to survive."

Proud daughter: Mary Elizabeth Calwell believes her father, Arthur, should be remembered as ''the father of multiculturalism''. Credit: Simon O'Dwyer

The story of modern Australia begins there, on August 2, 1945. It's an anniversary that demands particular reflection in the Australia of 2014, as debates over migrant numbers, asylum-seeker policy, multiculturalism and the ever-sensitive concept of "assimilation" seem able to roil us with the same fervour of decades past.

As with Scott Morrison today, amid the upheaval of 70 years ago stood an immigration minister whose motives and intentions divided the nation. But Gwenda Tavan, Latrobe University lecturer in politics and author of The Long, Slow Death of White Australia , says what set Calwell apart was his utter determination to explain and "sell" a policy that had no hope of success without public understanding and support.

"It was only when Calwell got involved in very late 1944 that he realised if we're going to do this, it's going to be big, and we're going to really have to engage the Australian people," Dr Tavan says.

"Selling a message to the Australian people would be fundamental. We take it for granted that all these events happened in 1945 but we could have had a very different immigration program if it wasn't for the fact that Calwell ended up taking on the job. We view [the selling] of it cynically but it did help that process of helping the people understand why this program was necessary.

"I find it interesting to contrast it with the present day - we still maintain a high immigration intake but governments spend very little time or energy nowadays talking to us about that program, why it's there, what it entails ... the politics that emerge out of that is that people are really kept in the dark."

History has not been kind to Calwell. He is remembered most often as the Labor leader who lost the 1961 election to Robert Menzies by a single seat, and who years later was rolled by Gough Whitlam - as well as for the flip side of his "populate or perish" campaign to transform Australia through immigration: his insistence that this transformation would take place within the bounds of existing policy, the White Australia policy.

For his daughter Mary Elizabeth, this black-and-white depiction of her father remains enough of an injustice that two years ago she wrote a book about his life to remind Australians of the challenges of the times, when proposing any sort of migration policy broader than the traditional white English model was anathema to many.

"We had 7½ million people then ... a lot it was about persuading people that their jobs wouldn't be threatened and that overseas people would become part of society," Calwell says.

"People call him racist but it's irresponsible because it's not understanding the whole situation. It wasn't racist but some people want to make it racist. Some people were very hostile to even European immigration. There was a concern about stability, particularly after the war."

Her father, she says, deserves to be remembered as "the father of multiculturalism. He was the father of immigration and the father of the first major immigration movement in our history."

Dr Tavan agrees Arthur Calwell deserves a more nuanced assessment.

"I'm often asked about Calwell and racism and it's a lot more complex than that. He had the views of the time - which were that Australia's prosperity and success as a nation depended on everyone being white and either British or European. I don't think his views were particularly different from anyone else in his government or the people of the time."

She notes that Calwell's public insistence on European migration did not reflect the character of the private man. He was, for instance, an early advocate of Aboriginal land rights. He taught himself Mandarin. And he was a friend to many in Melbourne's Chinese community, among them a young Chinese man sent to Australia as a military liaison officer during the war.

The young soldier, David Wang, roomed in a boarding house in Carlton, where he met and fell and love with a neighbour - the woman who would become Gabrielle Wang's mother. But he wasn't allowed to stay until Calwell intervened, and eventually arranged for him to return on a business visa.

Calwell's faith was justified. In 1965, on Calwell's nomination, David Wang was appointed one of Australia's first two Chinese-Australian justices of the peace. Four years later, he broke new ground with election to the Melbourne City Council.

For Gabrielle Wang, her family's story reflects the extraordinary change in the wider country. Though she despairs at the current debate over asylum seekers - "We take two steps forward and then we take a step backward and we're in a leap backwards now" - she nonetheless celebrates the transformation.

"The place is full of beautiful different faces and different colours now and I love that. I love the way Australia has been accepting of different cultures."

TIMELINE OF CHANGE

Australian population:

1947: 7.5 million

1977: 14 million

2013: 23 million

Percentage of population born overseas:

1947: 10 per cent

1977: 22 per cent

2013: 27.7 per cent

How it unfolded:

August 1945: First Immigration Department established post-war migration program launched.

January 1947: First migrants from Britain arrive.

1947-1954: Australia accepts about 170,000 displaced people from Eastern Europe.

November 1955: Australia's millionth post-war migrant, Barbara Porritt, arrives in Melbourne.

1958: Migration Act reforms, references to race removed, dictation test abolished in major steps away from White Australia policy.

1960: Otto Kampe, the 250,000th refugee, arrives in Melbourne.

1961: Australia's population hits 10.5 million, a 43 per cent increase 1945.

1973: Death of White Australia policy - policy of non-discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or nationality introduced in 1973.

1975: Large resettlement of refugees from Indo-China after Vietnam War; more than 155,000 taken since 1975.

1989: Thousands of Chinese students seek asylum after Tiananmen Square massacre.

1992-93: Labor government introduces mandatory detention, Refugee Review Tribunal in 1993.

August 2001: Tampa stand-off places asylum-seeker policy front and centre as major political issue.

March 2002: Australia welcomes 6 millionth migrant since World War II, Cristina Jurado, from the Philippines.

2014-15: Migration program set at 190,000 places; humanitarian intake 13,750 places.

SOURCES: Department of Immigration; Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Most Viewed in National

Election Speeches

Each election, Prime Ministerial candidates lay out their parties’ platforms in campaign speeches. These speeches are more than just historical records; they tell us about national concerns and political obsessions, wars and drought, industry and society. They speak to – and in some cases, exploit – our aspirations and our fears. We’ve collected speeches by successful and unsuccessful candidates from every election from 1901 right up to the present day.

“”

Scott Morrison

Delivered at Brisbane , May 15th, 2022

Anthony Albanese

Delivered at Perth , May 1st, 2022

Here is a sample of the data visualisations available on our explore page .

This graph highlights the frequency of the usage of the word over time.

A project by The Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House

• > Aboriginal culture
• > Politics
• > Paul Keating's Redfern speech

Please note that this website might show images and names of First Peoples who have passed.

Paul Keating's Redfern speech

Never before, and never since, has a politician been so uncompromisingly honest with their assessment of Aboriginal history. The Redfern Speech remains one of the most significant speeches ever delivered by a politician in Australia.

Wishing you knew more about Aboriginal culture? Search no more.

Get key foundational knowledge about Aboriginal culture in a fun and engaging way.

This is no ordinary resource: It includes a fictional story, quizzes, crosswords and even a treasure hunt.

Stop feeling bad about not knowing. Make it fun to know better.

Sold! Show me how No, thank you

The Redfern Speech—A moment in history

Few of those who were present were aware that they were witnessing history: A politician admitting that "we committed the murders", "we took the lands", "we brought the diseases" and "we took the children".

Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered the speech in Redfern Park on 10 December 1992 , launching Australia's program for the International Year of the World's Indigenous People . The National Archives of Australia record the title of this speech as Opportunity and care, dignity and hope, 1993 . [1]

Keating delivered the speech 6 months after the High Court's Mabo decision on native title .

Media did not give much attention to the speech at the time, but it is now regarded by many as one of the greatest Australian speeches . [2]

Commentators argue that the lack of "sentimentalising or histrionic rhetoric" helped put the speech firmly in public memory which became evident in a 2011 poll of ‘the most unforgettable speech of all time’ where it was voted number three, behind Martin Luther King Jr’s ‘I Have a Dream’ and, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. [3]

Many see this speech as the foundation for the apology to the Stolen Generations by PM Kevin Rudd in 2008.

We brought the diseases. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. — Prime Minister Paul Keating in The Redfern Speech [1]

Listen to the speech

To me, [the Redfern Speech] had contained the recognition that I needed: that the leader of our country saw a place in the Australian narrative for me and my community that was, at last, positive, forward-looking and inclusive. — Larissa Behrendt, Eualeyai/Kamillaroi woman, Professor of Law at the University of Technology [4]

This day changed everything for me. It was the first time in my lifetime that a political leader called the dodgy foundations of this country for what they are. The fact that it was built on stolen land. The tragedy of Stolen Generations ... The fact that justice remains to be done ... And he did so by asking people to stand in another's shoes: really the only way to get people to unblock their ears and to hear. — Sally Fitzpatrick [5]

This day did not change my life, but it did change my belief of politicians being self-seeking to one of hope that some might be prepared to make an unpopular move for the betterment of a part of the society. — Edward Tsoukalidis [5]

Transcript of the Redfern Speech

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am very pleased to be here today at the launch of Australia's celebration of the 1993 International Year of the World's Indigenous People .

It will be a year of great significance for Australia.

It comes at a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed.

Because, in truth, we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.

This is a fundamental test of our social goals and our national will: our ability to say to ourselves and the rest of the world that Australia is a first rate social democracy, that we are what we should be - truly the land of the fair go and the better chance.

There is no more basic test of how seriously we mean these things.

It is a test of our self-knowledge.

Of how well we know the land we live in. How well we know our history.

How well we recognise the fact that, complex as our contemporary identity is, it cannot be separated from Aboriginal Australia.

How well we know what Aboriginal Australians know about Australia.

Redfern is a good place to contemplate these things.

Just a mile or two from the place where the first European settlers landed, in too many ways it tells us that their failure to bring much more than devastation and demoralisation to Aboriginal Australia continues to be our failure.

More I think than most Australians recognise, the plight of Aboriginal Australians affects us all.

In Redfern it might be tempting to think that the reality Aboriginal Australians face is somehow contained here, and that the rest of us are insulated from it.

But of course, while all the dilemmas may exist here, they are far from contained.

We know the same dilemmas and more are faced all over Australia.

That is perhaps the point of this Year of the World's Indigenous People: to bring the dispossessed out of the shadows, to recognise that they are part of us, and that we cannot give indigenous Australians up without giving up many of our own most deeply held values, much of our own identity - and our own humanity.

Nowhere in the world, I would venture, is the message more stark than it is in Australia.

We simply cannot sweep injustice aside. Even if our own conscience allowed us to, I am sure, that in due course, the world and the people of our region would not.

There should be no mistake about this - our success in resolving these issues will have a significant bearing on our standing in the world.

However intractable the problems seem, we cannot resign ourselves to failure - any more than we can hide behind the contemporary version of Social Darwinism which says that to reach back for the poor and dispossessed is to risk being dragged down.

That seems to me not only morally indefensible, but bad history.

We non-Aboriginal Australians should perhaps remind ourselves that Australia once reached out for us.

Didn't Australia provide opportunity and care for the dispossessed Irish? The poor of Britain? The refugees from war and famine and persecution in the countries of Europe and Asia?

Isn't it reasonable to say that if we can build a prosperous and remarkably harmonious multicultural society in Australia, surely we can find just solutions to the problems which beset the first Australians - the people to whom the most injustice has been done.

And, as I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians.

It begins, I think, with that act of recognition.

Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing.

We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life.

We brought the diseases. The alcohol.

We committed the murders.

We took the children from their mothers.

We practised discrimination and exclusion.

It was our ignorance and our prejudice.

And our failure to imagine these things being done to us.

With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds.

We failed to ask - how would I feel if this were done to me?

As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.

If we needed a reminder of this, we received it this year.

The Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody showed with devastating clarity that the past lives on in inequality, racism and injustice.

In the prejudice and ignorance of non-Aboriginal Australians, and in the demoralisation and desperation, the fractured identity, of so many Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

For all this, I do not believe that the Report should fill us with guilt.

Down the years, there has been no shortage of guilt, but it has not produced the responses we need.

Guilt is not a very constructive emotion.

I think what we need to do is open our hearts a bit.

Perhaps when we recognise what we have in common we will see the things which must be done - the practical things.

There is something of this in the creation of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

The Council's mission is to forge a new partnership built on justice and equity and an appreciation of the heritage of Australia's indigenous people.

In the abstract those terms are meaningless.

We have to give meaning to "justice" and "equity" - and, as I have said several times this year, we will only give them meaning when we commit ourselves to achieving concrete results.

If we improve the living conditions in one town, they will improve in another. And another.

If we raise the standard of health by twenty per cent one year, it will be raised more the next.

If we open one door others will follow.

When we see improvement, when we see more dignity, more confidence, more happiness - we will know we are going to win.

We need these practical building blocks of change.

The Mabo Judgement should be seen as one of these.

By doing away with the bizarre conceit that this continent had no owners prior to the settlement of Europeans, Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice.

It will be much easier to work from that basis than has ever been the case in the past.

For that reason alone we should ignore the isolated outbreaks of hysteria and hostility of the past few months.

Mabo is an historic decision - we can make it an historic turning point, the basis of a new relationship between indigenous and non-Aboriginal Australians.

The message should be that there is nothing to fear or to lose in the recognition of historical truth, or the extension of social justice, or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include indigenous Australians.

There is everything to gain.

Even the unhappy past speaks for this.

Where Aboriginal Australians have been included in the life of Australia they have made remarkable contributions.

Economic contributions, particularly in the pastoral and agricultural industry.

They are there in the frontier and exploration history of Australia.

They are there in the wars.

In sport to an extraordinary degree.

In literature and art and music.

In all these things they have shaped our knowledge of this continent and of ourselves. They have shaped our identity.

They are there in the Australian legend.

We should never forget - they have helped build this nation.

And if we have a sense of justice, as well as common sense, we will forge a new partnership.

As I said, it might help us if we non-Aboriginal Australians imagined ourselves dispossessed of land we had lived on for fifty thousand years - and then imagined ourselves told that it had never been ours.

Imagine if ours was the oldest culture in the world and we were told that it was worthless.

Imagine if we had resisted this settlement, suffered and died in the defence of our land, and then were told in history books that we had given up without a fight.

Imagine if non-Aboriginal Australians had served their country in peace and war and were then ignored in history books.

Imagine if our feats on sporting fields had inspired admiration and patriotism and yet did nothing to diminish prejudice.

Imagine if our spiritual life was denied and ridiculed.

Imagine if we had suffered the injustice and then were blamed for it.

It seems to me that if we can imagine the injustice we can imagine its opposite.

And we can have justice.

I say that for two reasons:

I say it because I believe that the great things about Australian social democracy reflect a fundamental belief in justice.

And I say it because in so many other areas we have proved our capacity over the years to go on extending the realms of participation, opportunity and care.

Just as Australians living in the relatively narrow and insular Australia of the 1960s imagined a culturally diverse, worldly and open Australia, and in a generation turned the idea into reality, so we can turn the goals of reconciliation into reality.

There are very good signs that the process has begun.

The creation of the Reconciliation Council is evidence itself.

The establishment of the ATSIC - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - is also evidence.

The Council is the product of imagination and good will.

ATSIC emerges from the vision of indigenous self-determination and selfmanagement.

The vision has already become the reality of almost 800 elected Aboriginal Regional Councillors and Commissioners determining priorities and developing their own programs.

All over Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are taking charge of their own lives.

And assistance with the problems which chronically beset them is at last being made available in ways developed by the communities themselves.

If these things offer hope, so does the fact that this generation of Australians is better informed about Aboriginal culture and achievement, and about the injustice that has been done, than any generation before.

We are beginning to more generally appreciate the depth and the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.

From their music and art and dance we are beginning to recognise how much richer our national life and identity will be for the participation of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.

We are beginning to learn what the indigenous people have known for many thousands of years - how to live with our physical environment.

Ever so gradually we are learning how to see Australia through Aboriginal eyes, beginning to recognise the wisdom contained in their epic story.

I think we are beginning to see how much we owe the indigenous Australians and how much we have lost by living so apart.

I said we non-indigenous Australians should try to imagine the Aboriginal view.

It can't be too hard. Someone imagined this event today, and it is now a marvellous reality and a great reason for hope.

There is one thing today we cannot imagine.

We cannot imagine that the descendants of people whose genius and resilience maintained a culture here through fifty thousand years or more, through cataclysmic changes to the climate and environment, and who then survived two centuries of dispossession and abuse, will be denied their place in the modern Australian nation.

We cannot imagine that.

We cannot imagine that we will fail.

And with the spirit that is here today I am confident that we won't.

I am confident that we will succeed in this decade.

Join thousands of Smart Owls who know more!

The referendum failed...

...and many Australian's little knowledge of important areas of First Nations peoples' lives likely contributed to this outcome. Whatever comes next, you can equip yourself with enough background information to feel confident about First Nations topics.

"I'm really grateful for the information you sent me. It will definitely be really helpful in me getting to know, understand, honour and relate with Aboriginal people better." — Pearl

Know more. Understand better. Join a new generation of Australians!

* Required field | Privacy policy | Read a sample

Join thousands of Smart Owls!

Thanks, I'm good

This website is using cookies

This site uses cookies to personalise your experience. If you continue using the site, you indicate that you are happy to receive cookies from this website.

• Property & Home
• Retirement Guide

‘We committed the murders’: Australia’s most memorable political speeches

From maiden speeches to announcing their dismissals and delivering heartfelt national apologies, Australia’s leading politicians have delivered an abundance of speeches to the nation, but there are some which stick out in the memories of those who witnessed them far more than others.

Some speeches remain as relevant and powerful in today’s Australia as they were at the time the words were spoken, with Aussies still able to recite them, while others are remembered for their audacity.

Julia Gillard

One of the most powerful political speeches in recent times was delivered by then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard when she branded former Leader of the Opposition, and later prime minister, Tony Abbott a misogynist over his “repulsive double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism”, during a passionate deliverance on October 9, 2012.

“The Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man,” she said, “Not now, not ever. The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office.

“Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That’s what he needs.

“Let’s go through the Opposition Leader’s repulsive double standards, repulsive double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism. We are now supposed to take seriously that the Leader of the Opposition is offended by Mr Slipper’s text messages, when this is the Leader of the Opposition who has said, and this was when he was a minister under the last government – not when he was a student, not when he was in high school – when he was a minister under the last government.”

Gough Whitlam

Another speech that has gone down in Aussie history is the address given by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam on the steps of Parliament House following his dismissal in 1975. 

“Ladies and gentleman , well may we say God Save the Queen because nothing will save the Governor-General,” he said. “The proclamation which you have just heard read by the Governor-General’s official secretary was countersigned ‘Malcolm Fraser’ who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975 as Kerr’s cur.

“They won’t silence the outskirts of Parliament House, even if the inside has been silenced for the next few weeks… Maintain your rage and enthusiasm through the campaign for the election now to be held and until polling day.”

Read more: Katter’s Australian Party dumps Senator Fraser Anning over ‘racist’ views.

Pauline Hanson

Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the more contentious speeches to have garnered huge attention was delivered by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson during her maiden speech to parliament back in 1996 shortly after she was elected as the Federal Member for Oxley.

The now-prolific pollie shot to prominence following her parliamentary debut, in which she said: ” I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.” She also used the opportunity to discuss her beliefs that “Aboriginals received more benefits than non-Aboriginals” and of “reverse racism” which she said was being applied to “mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness”.

Faser Anning

Another speech – most likely to be remembered for all the wrong reasons – is the maiden speech made earlier this year by Katter’s Australian Party Senator Fraser Anning, who was slammed, and later sacked, for using the term “final solution” during his address.

Addressing the Upper House in August, Anning said: “I believe that immigration to our country should be a privilege, not an obligation. We as a nation are entitled to insist that those who are allowed to come here predominantly reflect the historic European-Christian composition of Australian society. Those who come here need to assimilate and integrate.”

Adding: “The final solution to the immigration problem, of course, is a popular vote.”

Sir Robert Menzies

The longest-serving Aussie prime minister of all time Sir Robert Menzies delivered countless public speeches during his two leadership stints, between 1939-41 and 1949-1966. Perhaps his most renowned though, was Menzies’ Forgotten People speech from May 1942, which cemented him as one of the country’s greatest politicians.

“If we are to talk of classes, then the time has come to say something of the forgotten class — the middle class — those people who are constantly in danger of being ground between the upper and the nether millstones of the false war; the middle class who, properly regarded represent the backbone of this country,” he said.

“I do not believe that the real life of this nation is to be found either in great luxury hotels and the petty gossip of so-called fashionable suburbs, or in the officialdom of the organised masses. It is to be found in the homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised, and who, whatever their individual religious conviction or dogma, see in their children their greatest contribution to the immortality of their race. The home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole.”

Paul Keating

Paul Keating’s may have given his famous Redfern Speech more than a quarter of a century ago but the former Labor leader’s words are still just as powerful today. 

“It was we who did the dispossessing,” he said. “We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases and the alcohol.

“We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine that these things could be done to us.”

The address, delivered on December 10 1992, was the first time an Australian leader admitted the impact of white settlement on Indigenous people.

However, it was Labor Leader Kevin Rudd who finally delivered the National Apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples on February 13 2008. 

“The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future,” he told the Lower House. “We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

“We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

“To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.”

Can you remember hearing these speeches at the time? Have any other political speeches made an impact on you – for good or bad reasons?

• Travel at 60
• See the world
• Make friends

Our mission is simple

To curate to the needs and wants of over-60s online — from news and retirement guides to cruises and exclusive holidays — and get members a better deal wherever possible through the power of our huge online community.

Explore More

• Property & Home
• Member Deals
• Travel Deals
• Cruise Deals

Book Confidently With Us

Starts at 60.

• Submissions
• Advertising & Partnerships
• Terms & Conditions
• Media Ethics

Pay safely with us

• Environment
• more Topics

Unforgettable Speeches

on ABC Radio National

The Unforgettable Speeches evening was a special broadcast event, where we revealed the most popular public speeches as chosen by you.

Phillip Adams was joined by special guests Bob Carr, John Bell , Dr Peter Jensen and Dr Judith Brett who interpreted the results.

Find out how to register for this very special event...

The nation has voted

The nation voted, the votes have been counted, and the winner is a speech calling for the transformation of a society, made on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to a crowd of 250,000 people: Dr Martin Luther King’s 'I have a dream' . [ see the top twenty unforgettable speeches... ]

The results were revealed at a public event in the Eugene Goosens Hall, at the ABC Centre in Sydney. Late Night Live presenter Phillip Adams announced the most popular speeches, as nominated by ABC RN listeners, and discussed them with a panel of guests: Bob Carr, John Bell, Judith Brett and Peter Jensen, before a live audience. Highlights of the event can be heard on Late Night Live

Download MP3 audio of the entire event. (download size: 46 MB) View an image gallery of the event.

ABC Radio National had over 5,000 responses in its search for the public speeches that Australia considers unforgettable. Dr Jane Connors, ABC Radio National Manager, said, 'We are delighted by the enthusiastic and thoughtful response and the lively discussion this survey has inspired.'

Thanks to all of you who took part

Now you can vote for the great speech from rural Australia that inspired you the most . [ find out more... ]

The top twenty unforgettable speeches as chosen by you

• 1. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. I have a dream, 28 August 1963, Washington DC.
• 2. Jesus. Sermon on the Mount. c27.
• 3. Paul Keating. The Redfern Address, 10 December 1992, Redfern Park.
• 4. Winston Churchill. We Shall Fight on the Beaches, 4 June 1940, House of Commons.
• 5. Abraham Lincoln. Gettysburg Address, 19 November 1863.
• 6. John F. Kennedy. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Inaugural speech 20 January 1961, Washington DC.
• 7. Earl Spencer. Funeral Oration for Diana Princess of Wales, 6 September 1997, Westminster Abbey.
• 8. Henry V Act IV Scene III. Author William Shakespeare c 1599. St Crispin’s Day speech made before the Battle of Agincourt (which occurred on 25 October 1415).
• 9. Gough Whitlam. The Dismissal, 11 November 1975, Parliament House steps.
• 10. Queen Elizabeth I. I have the heart and stomach of a king, 9 August 1588. (Address to the troops at Tilbury as the Spanish Armada approached Britain.)
• 11. Nelson Mandela. An Ideal for Which I am Prepared to Die. Statement at trial, 20 April 1964, Johannesburg.
• 12. Mahatma Gandhi. Non-violence is the first article of my faith, 23 March 1922, Ahmadabad.
• 13. Socrates. Statement at trial condemning him to death, 399BC, Athens.
• 14. Robert Kennedy. Address to National Union of South African Students, 7 June 1966, Cape Town University.
• 15. Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We Now Demand Our Right To Vote, Keynote Address to Women’s Rights Convention, 19 July 1848 New York.
• 16. William Wilberforce. Abolition of Slavery, 12 May 1789, House of Commons.
• 17. Alfred Deakin. These are the times that try men’s souls, 15 March 1898, Bendigo.
• 18. Pericles. Funeral Oration for the fallen of the Peloponnesian War, 431 BC.
• 19. Mark Antony. Friends, Romans, Countrymen Lend Me Your Ears, Julius Caesar Act III Scene II. Author William Shakespeare c1599.
• 20. Ben Chifley. The Light on the Hill, 12 June 1949, ALP Conference.

On Radio National

Counterpoint

On Monday, March 26 at 4.00pm, Counterpoint featured a short extract from US President Ronald Reagan's 'Evil Empire' speech. [more]

Bush Telegraph

Every Wednesday throughout our survey Bush Telegraph featured and discussed a great rural speech. [more]

» Dame Enid Lyons » Ben Chifley » Miles Franklin » Peter Lalor's Bakery Hill speech » Sir Henry Parkes at Tenterfield

First Person

» I Have a Dream » Australia at War, 1939 » King Edward VIII's Abdication » Paul Keating's Redfern speech » Sermon on the Mount

Life Matters

The unforgettable speech in your life.

Not Winston Churchill, Robert Menzies or Paul Keating but the backyard speech -the one made by Uncle Barry at your 21st, your son speaking at his wedding, or your best friend who overcame her terror of public speaking to give a hilarious speech at your fiftieth.

And perhaps the most difficult kind of personal speech - the eulogy - the one that captured the richness of a person's life and gave comfort to family and friends.

» Unforgettable Speeches in Your Life

Australia Talks

The discussion was built around two speeches selected by Paul Barclay: Nelson Mandela's 1964 courtroom 'I am not afraid to die' speech; and Atticus Finch's courtroom speech in Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. A speech in the world, and a speech in fiction - how do we judge the influence there? [more]

» Classics, Politics, Fiction and the Shiver Up Your Spine

Lingua Franca

» Judith Brett on Robert Menzies speech, The Forgotten People » Michael Gurr on the Gettysburg Address

The Book Show

» Former speech-writers and advisers panel discussion

Mick Dodson was a commissioner on the Stolen Generations inquiry and this speech was given at the launch of the final report of that inquiry at the National Reconciliation Convention in Melbourne on May 26, 1997. [more]

Read the Unforgettable Speeches feature in the February 21 edition of Life etc . Drawing from the ABC's television and radio programs to explore the things that make a meaningful life: including health, home, finances, relationships and good living.

Site navigation

• About this series

Presenters' picks

• Resources / Speeches
• Unforgettable home page
• Radio National home page

Bob Carr, October 2002

Chosen by MICHAEL DUFFY, host of Counterpoint , Radio National, Mondays 4pm

Given at Coogee Oval for victims of the Bali bombing earlier that month.

More presenters' picks

Recent Votes

» Patrick Pearse, Declaration of Irish Republic, 1916 » John Gorton, Welcome to Returned Servicemen, 1946 » Paul Robeson, Address to Sydney Opera House Workers, 1960 » Archbishop Tutu, Opening of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 1995

We also asked...

» Malcolm Fraser » David Williamson » Alan Jones » Don Watson » Michael Fullilove » Sally Warhaft » Gary Wilson

Speech Quote

'Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.'

Robert Kennedy, 1966

Extraordinary life changing priciples for living that continue to impact millions across boundaries of time, ethnicity, gender & age. —from Ian Kilminster

We are interested in hearing your thoughts, views and opinions in our online guestbook.

• Have your say now!
• Read more comments

© 2020 ABC | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use