A Modest Member of Parliament [Bert Kelly], “Let’s try it on Fido, says Mavis,” The Australian Financial Review, June 27, 1975, p. 3.

Mavis has become very edgy lately. She feels that I am slipping down the political ladder. She complains:

You haven’t got yourself a single vote for ages, you have been listening to that wretched Eccles who is always moaning about inflation and too much government spending.

Why don’t you be like that nice Dr Cairns and think of ways of making money, not saving it?

I’m going to think of a new scheme of spending money that is sure to make you popular.

So she has come up with a Medibank scheme for animals which she is sure will be a vote winner. She says:

Look dear, the place is lousy with dogs, particularly since these English migrants became so numerous.

People are mad about their dogs, cats and budgies and so on. Guarantee free veterinary and hospital treatment for their pets and everyone will love you.

It is true that the dogs, cats and budgies don’t get a vote, not yet, anyway, but their owners are so soppy about their animals that they will vote for you in droves.

Free treatment for sick animals — just think of the pulling power of that line!

Bitter experience has taught me not to take Mavis’ effusions to Eccles for criticism — he is sad enough already. But even without Eccles I knew that Mavis is talking nonsense, though I cannot screw up my courage enough to tell her so.

I have heard my political leaders saying so eloquently and so often that the main cause of our present mess is excessive government spending, so I know it is no use asking them to endorse more government spending when we ought to have less.

So I have to tell Mavis that Medibank for pets is just not on, though I am afraid that is only the beginning of my troubles.

Not only will I have to knock back the silly schemes like Mavis’, but we will have to refuse to endorse some sensible policies also.

It will be comparatively easy for us to cut down on some of the RED nonsense and stop buying Blue Poles and curtail the irresponsible expenditure on swimming pools and sending sports teams overseas, etc.

But cutting out these extravagances won’t make much of a hole in the government expenditure about which we are always complaining.

These cuts will certainly be responsible, if unpopular, but they wouldn’t be big enough to make much difference.

It is when we come to look at the really big expenditure items, such as education and welfare, that we will be really tested.

But there is a general feeling of uneasiness about the fat in the education vote that should be cut and perhaps the euphoria about education has largely evaporated.

We know that most of the increase in education expenditure has gone to the teachers rather than to the children who were supposed to be the beneficiaries.

Perhaps we can make a significant cut in education which would not harm the children though it would certainly make the teachers cross. But the trouble is that there are a lot of teachers with a lot of votes.

If we are honest with ourselves, which we seldom are, we would admit that there is a great deal of unnecessary expenditure in the social welfare field.

We all know that pensioners who are totally dependent on the pension have a tough time. But we also know that there are a large number, if not a large proportion, of pensioners who are, with competent footwork, doing very well out of the system.

I know we are supposed to think of aged pensioners as noble people who have borne the heat and burden of the day and so on, but the truth is, that, as a group, they are very much like the rest of us, some good, some bad and most only average.

Some are really milking the system but the trouble is to identify them, and having done so, to have enough courage to take away advantages that they are enjoying at the expense of the average taxpayer who is a chap with three kids.

And again, if we were honest with ourselves, we would recognise that the policy of eventually giving the pension to all age pensioners free of the means test is a disastrous mistake made by all political parties.

It is useless to mouth platitudes about cutting down government expenditure while this albatross is hung about our political necks. But it would never do to admit this.

There would be far more votes in advocating Medibank for dogs, cats and budgies.