S4.' 4
1 7 MAY 1967
4 RAs EM3ARGO: 7.30 Monday
May, 1967.
REFERENDUTM: THE " YES" CASE
Talk by the Prime . Minister, Mr. Harold Holt
( This talk opening the " Yes" cases for both referendums will be
telecast and broadcast by -e A. 3. C. in all states this evening).
I want to talk to you about the referendum which will be
held throughout Australia on Saturday, May 27th.
This referendum is necessary oecause your Federal Parliament
proposes and this is subject to your decision to make certain
alterations to the Commonwealth Constitution which the Parliament
considers desirable. have passed the legislation to do this, but,
under the . terms of our Constitution, Parliament's action must oe
approved by you, the people, before that Constitution can oe altered.
For reasons I shall outline, we hope you will say " Yes"
to what we have in mind. ' hen I say we, I include the Leader of the
Country Party, Mr. McEwen, and the Leader of the Labor Party, Mr.
'. hitlam. We have joined in preparing the official " Yes" case,
which should have reached you through your letterbox. ;.' hen I say
we, I can include also . all'e mbers of the House of Representatives
who voted unanimously for the proposals we s . all be putting to you,
and, in the case of the Sen te, ll Senators in sunport of the
proposal rela. ting to aboriginais and an overwhelming majority of
Sen: tors the vote was 45 to 7 who voted in support of the proposal
to break what is called the " rexus" rel'ating to the number of
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.
You will gather that we are putting two matters before
you. One concerning our . boriginal people and the other described
as the Nexus Referendum. I shall speak first abou,. t the Nexus
Referendum. The word " nexus" may need explaining. It is a short way
of summarisin the words in section 24 of the Commonwealth Constitution
whioh now read this way:-
" The House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members directly chosen by the people of the
Commonwealth, and the number of Members shall be,
as nearly as pricticable, twice the number of the
Senators.
This section, as you will see, ties the House of
Representatives to the Senate in terms of numbers. That is
what the word " nexus" implies. Now to put the matter simply,
all the main political parties in Federal Parliament believe that
this " nexus" should be broken. As matters stand, any increase in
the House of Represen: tatives made necessary by population growth
must be accompanied by an increase of half that total in the number
of Senators. We do not believe this to be necessary. We think it
requires us to create more Members of Parliament than the situation
is likely to call for at any particular time. We have in mind two
things 1) To remove the need to increase the number of
Senators whenever the number of Members in the / 2
-2-
House of Representatives is increased:
2) To impose a limit on ume extent to which
membership of the House of Representatives can
be increased.
The first would break the " nexus" and the second would
write a safeguard into the Constitution against excessive increases
in the number of parliamentarians.
I am sure thit, as believers in the democratic system
you will be impressed by the fact that the vote in support of these
proposals in the House of Representatives was unanimous and that the
leaders of the three principal political parties have united to ask you..
to give your support to them. e did not embark on this course
lightly. Indeed, legislation for this purpose was introduced by my
predecessor, Sir Robert Menzies, in 1965. ie see the proposals as
commonsense, practical parliamentary reforms. We see your response
to them as a test of political maturity and a rejection of the
prejudice and misleading arguments with which you will find yourselves
assailed. The generally accepted view of all the main political
parties'is that the Senate of 60 members 10 from each of the 6
States needs no increase at this time. The Senate was intended
to be a House of Review and by tradition is regarded as the custodian
of the rights of the smaller States. Its powers are defined and
established in the Constitution and its effectiveness does not
depend upon increased numoers. We have had six States since
Federation and no change in that figure is in sight. Membership
of the House of Representatives, on the other hand, is geared to
the population and we are confronted with a rapid and continuing
population growth.
When the present size of the House of Representatives
was decided in 1949, Australia's population was just on 8 millions.
If the present Parliament runs its normal course, with the next
general election being held in 1969 our population should have
reached 12 millions an increase of 50% in the 20 years which will
have elapsed since 1949. We have no proposal for an increase in the
size of the House of Representatives in any way proportionate to
that increase in population. Indeed we are proposing to you that
the number of Members of the House of Representatives be determined
by dividing the population of each State by not less than 85 000.
In 1949 each Member of the House of Representatives represented on
average 66, COO people. Under our proposal we would continue to
represent not less than 85,000 people, and this despite the enormous
growth in the subject matters dealt with by the Commonwealth
Parliament and their increasing complexity. Australia is a
rapidly growing nation with widening interest and responsibilities.
Matters which in the past occupied little or no time in the
Commonwealth Parliament are now matters of major concern, which in
the judgment of the electorate call for Commonwealth attention and
participation. I have only to mention as examples such matters of
vital concern to you as education, housing, national development,
employment, external affairs, immigration, health and social
services. If you say you cannot break the " nexus" what will
follow. The result will no be that from now to eternity the number
of Senators will remain at 60 and the number of Members of the House
of Representatives at 123. At some point of time, because of
population growth and other factors, the demand for a more
representative Parliament will be irresistible. But the " nexus"
rule would still apply. You will be told by our opponents that ours
is a proposal to increase the numoer of parliamentarians. We do
not need any change in the Constitution to bring that about.
-3-
Parliament has unlimited powers to increase the House of
Representatives so long as at the same time it increases the size
of the Senate. Twelve more Memoers of the House of Representatives
would mean 6 more Senators. Tuentyfour additional Members in the
lower House would mean 12 more Senators and so on; One of these
days our population will have reached 20 millions. If the increases
in the House of Representatives to service the needs of this
growing population have to be matched as to half the number of
Members of the House of Representatives by additional Senators,
then we certainly might have a surfeit of politicians. Surely
the sensible alternative to this clumsy kind of operation is to
say " Yes" and break the " nexus" at the same time saying " Yes"
to the provision which will limit the extent to which the House
may be increased now or in the future.
The core of the matter is whether you believe, with us,
thit the Senate membership should not necessarily be enlarged
whenever population growth invites an incro se in the popular House.
If you agree with us you will, far from facilitatin the growth
in the numoer of parliamentarlins, be limiting the increase which
can oe made. It cannot be repeated too often thit a " Yes" vote will not
only remove the out-dated link oetween the Senate and the House of
Representatives; it will also limit the rate at which the popular
House can grow.
The advocates of the case put on a show of iodignation
at the prospect of an increase in Parliament and throw in the glib
phrase thit ' e are already over-governed. 3reat Jritain, a small
island has a House of Commons numbering 630. You don't hear the
English people complaining about the size of the House of Commons,
which is the voice of the nation. The British people believe deeply
and profoundly in the institution of Parliament.
The " No" case strikes ne as a crude appeal to prejudice
rather than an appeal to the commonsense of the Australian people.
A small minority of Senators you could number them on your fingers.-
are in open opposition to reforms supported unanimously by the
House of Representatives and by all the main political parties.
The case they put to you is the oaseless suggestion that your National
Parliament has conspired in some wiy to undermine the Senate, and
they add a sneering imputation that the Members of the National
Parliament elected by you are ln y and inefficient. For good
measure, tAis handful of " to" spokesmen hint darkly at unnecessary
increases in the cost of government. This is another red herring.
The cost of parliamentary government in Australi is remarkably low.
The relevant figure for operitin the House of Representatives works
out at about 30 cents per head of the population. Not very costly
when you think of the role the House of Reoresentatives plays in
our national affairs and in relation to your own lives.
I have enough faith in the good sense of Australian electors
to oelieve they will examine the pros and cons of this auestion calmly
and objectively. They will reject the spirit in which the " No"
spokesmen have approached them. I confidently expect a mature
judgment from mature people.
Now let me say something about the second referendum guestion
the one concerning our aboriginal people. There was no opposition
to it in Parliament in either House and I would anticipate overwhelming
support for it by the electors.
The aboriginal people of Australia are mentioned explicitly
in the Constitution twice only. / 4
-4-
Section 127 of the Constitution says:
" In reckonin the numbers of the people of the Comlonwealth,
or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth,
aboriginal natives shall not be counted."
At the turn of the century, when the Constitution was
framed, the principal reason for including Section 127 was the
practical difficulty of countin, the aboriginal population at
that time. It is, however, no longer a serious di ficulty. The
basis for the existence of the section consequently no longer remains.
It is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes
and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this
age. The second alteration Federal Parliament wants to make
is the deletion of the words " other than the aboriginal race in
any State" from Section 21 ( xxvi).
This section says:
" The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have
power to miake laws for the peace, order and good government
of the Commonwealth with respect to:
"( xxvi) The people of any race, other than the
aboriginal race in any otate, for whom it is
deemed necessary to make special lirs".
We have been influenced by the widespread impression which
exists that the words " other than the aboriginal race in any State"
are discriminatory. Unanimously, Federal Parliamment wants to remove these two
references to the aborigines, because one of the provisions is
out of date and oecause the other is widely believed to be discrininate
against aborigines. Let me remind you a'ain in conclusion that I can speak for
the three leaders of the principal political parties Liberal,
Labor and Country Party for a unanimous House of Representatives,
and for an overwhelming majority of members of the Senate when I
ask you to vote " Yes" to the two questions which ,; ill be Lefore you
on the ballot paper.
CAM1ERRA. 15 MAY, 1967.