COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH BY ( Q2 3MAY; 1~ 96
E3IeRAJ
The -Rt Hon. HAROLD HOLT, M. P.,
ON
REFERENDUM
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates', 18 May 1967]
Mr HAROLD HOLT ( Higgins-Prime
Minister>--by leave-I move:
That this House, having studied the arguments
set out in the official No case, reaffirms its view
that it is in the interest of good parliamentary
government in Australia to remove the need now
existing under the Commonwealth Constitution to
increase the number of senators whenever the
number of members in the House of Representatives
is increased, and to impose the limit proposed
on the extent to which the House of Representatives
can be. increased.
I have taken this opportunity to propose this
motion because, although this House previously
assented unanimously to the legislation
that enables us to introduce referendum
proposals and to present them to the people
and . this was followed by the support of an
overwhelming majority of the Senate, since
then the official Yes case and the official No
case have been published. Tonight it is my
purpose to refer briefly to the elements in
the case that we put before the Parliament
when the proposal to break -the nexus between
the House of Representatives and the
Senate was ' adopted, and* at the same time
to make some examination of the principal
arguments that have been advanced in the
official No case.
Honourable members will recall that the
first of the principal purposes of this refer-
7060/ 67 endum proposal is to remove the need to
increase the number of senators whenever
the number of -members of the House of
Representatives is increased. This is what we
term familiarly as the nexus between the
House of Representatives and the Senate
under the Constitution as at present worded.
The second purpose is to impose a limit,
which is put before the people for the first
time, on the extent to which membership of
the House of Representatives can be increased.
It is too seldom realised that as the
Constitution stands, the Parliament has
unlimited powers to increase the size of the
House of Representatives whenever it so
wishes, provided at the same time it increases
the size of the Senate. I have heard this
referendum described by its critics as a
proposal to increase the size of the Parliament.
We do not need a constitutional
change to do that. We need a constitutional
change for this reason: If at any time the
size of the Parliament is increased, we must
accompany an increase in the House of
Representatives with an increase of as nearly
as practicable half that number in the Senate.
I remind the House that section 24 of the
Commonwealth Constitution provides:
The House of Representatives shall be composed
of members directly chosen by the people
of the Commonwealth, and the number of such
members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice
the number of senators.
In the official case for the Yes proposal
the Leader of the Australian Labor Party,
the Leader of the Australian Country Party
and I have joined as spokesmen for -our
respective parties. We have put the case
in favour of an affirmative vote. We have
put the view that the Senate consisting of.
sixty senators-ten from each of the six
States-needs no increase at this time.
Membership of the ' House of Representatives
is based on populatioh growth. We
have been going through a period of rapid
and continuing population growth, and
this situation faces us as far ahead as we
can see. The House last dealt with the size
of the Parliament in 1949. If this Parliament
runs its full course twenty years will
have elapsed by the time we , reach the' next
general election. In 1949 each member of
the House of Representatives represented
on an average 66,000 people. Today the
average is 94,000 people,: and by 1969
the figure will be well over 97,000.
There are some people-this appears
to include those who have presented the
official No case-who take the view that
there should never be any increase in the
size of the Parliament. This is. the logical
conclusion to be drawn from the argument
advanced in the No case. It does not seem
to matter that since membership was ' last
increased the population will have risen -by
1969 from eight million to twelve million.
What does a-mere 50% increase in population
matter? What does ' a mere increase
in the complexity of the business of government
matter? What does a mere
increase in the variety and number of
subjects that this Parliament ' is called upon
to deal with matter? Even in, the eyes
of those who have joined together in
presenting the official No case there must
be some point at which they recognise that
the ' increase in population ' has brought
about some need for an increase in the
size of the House of Representatives.
However,' while the: nexus remains the
change can be accomplished only if at the
same time we increase the number of
members' in the Senate to' half the extent
of the increase in the number of members
in the House of Representatives.
We have proposed that the -number ot
electorates in each State should be determined by dividing the population of the
State by not less than 85,000. This does not
mean that automatically there would be
an increase in membership for each 85,000
people, but it does set a minimum. For
the first time in the history of this country
a limit would be imposed upon the extent
to which the numerical strength of the
. Parliament could be increased. We as
members of the Parliament are willing to
accept that limitation because we want
the public to be assured that we are not
seeking any. inordinate increase in numbers.
All we want to ensure is a Parliament that
effectively represents the interests of the
people whom we represent in this place.
Of course, there is a different way of going
about it. It so happens that we as members
of the National Parliament represent on an
average more electors than does a member
of the House of Commons in the Parliament
at Westminster. Yet I have not heard
the people of Britain complain that they
are over-governed, that they have too many
parliamentarians. They value the services
they receive from their members. Theirs
is a strong democracy.
As I said, we could go about parliamentary
representation in another way, as
is done in the United States of America.
There a member of parliament represents
far more people than each of us does or
would propose. However, to carry out his
duties a member of Congress or a member
of the United States Senate needs a very
large official staff. Thus the people are
served largely by officials. I do not think the
Australian people or the people of the
United Kingdom want that sort of representation.
They have become accustomed to
being able to go to their own parliamentary
representative and have him look after their
interests-not have them looked after by a
first secretary, a second secretary or a third
secretary as part of a large staff as has been
found necessary in the case of a Federal
member in the United States so that he may
provide some representation for his constituents.
I doubt whether there is very much
economic difference between the systems
that operate, in the United States and
Australia. .1 repeat that this is the. first attempt to
write a specific check into the Constitution;
the first attempt to limit the rate of growth
of the House of Representatives. With today's
population a quota of 85,000 would
give a' membership in the House of Representatives
of 136, an ' increase of thirteen
seats throughout . the whole of Australia.
The Senate would be left unchanged at sixty.
This would m: ean' that each seat in the
House would represent 85,000 people compared
with the figure of 66,000 when the
Parliament was last increased in 1948
coming up to the election of 1949. Unless
this nexus is. removed . any, increase in the
House of Representatives must be accompanied,
by an. increase in the size of the
Senate on a two to one basis. By this proposal
that we put forward to break the nexus
there is no question, as I shall establish,
of eroding the proper role or powers of the
Senate or of preventing its future enlargement
if the Parliament so decides. The prevailing
view is that the Senate of sixty can
discharge : effectively its role as a house of
review and as custodian of the rights of the
smaller States.
have': mentioned the United States of
America.' It" has just on eighteen times our
population. and has' a Senate of just on 100
membies cormpared with our Senate at ' present'of
sixty. Yet'the Senate in-the United
Statis enjoys a ' prestige and ' an ' authority
which'I think would be envied by any upper
chamber in any part. of the world. So the
effectiveness of the Senate does not depend
on . numbeis. Its powers are defined and
establisfhd' in the Coinmonwealth Constitution.
Other -countries with a two house
system operate successfully without the need
for a nexus between the two houses. I have
done some research on this matter and apart
from Australia there is only ' one country
which I have been able to discover-it is
Norway-with anything approaching such a
nexus. The' proposal is designed to allow
th'esmallest increase in the House of Representatives
which we believe to be consistent
with effective representation without the
necessity-at the same time to make adjustments
in the size' of the Senate.
I do not'want to spend a great deal of
time on: the positive side of our argument
because this '. was covered quite . adequately
in the second reading'debate when the proposal
was originally, before us. It is all on
the record. I have made my statements on
the matter on television and over the radio,
as have the Leider of the'Opposition ( Mr
Whitlam) and the Acting Leader of the
Australian Country Party ( Mr Anthony), who have joined in the support'of the case
which is now being presented to the people.
But it does become necessary to make some
analysis of the ' officialcase presented for
the No argument. The case has'been presenited,
as I understand it, by the two members
in the Senate of the Australian Democratic
Labor Party, ' assisted by a Liberal
Party senator, Senator Wright, and certain
others of the small gr. ou who voted against
this proposal in the Senate.
Stokes-They. are. all senators.
Mr HAROLD HOLT-Yes, the only
people who have joined in resisting the Yes
case-in the official case anyhow-are senators
and : they are a very small minority of
the total membership of the Senate. The
votiig ' in the Senate on the proposal was
forty-five in favour of . what we are now
advocating and seven against.
, I. find the No case saddening. It is quite
disheartening in a way. to find in these days
that men who represent the people in the
Senate-they are . a small minority of the
total membership of the Senate-can resort
to. these fusty,! old-fashioned appeals to prejudice,
picking up the sort of cliches that
have. been bandied around by critics outside
the Parliament and with which we have had
to' cope from time to time. I will refer
further to that matter later. To me it is a
sad thing that there is still a body. of men
to be found in the other chamber who cannot
make ' an objective, dispassionate ' and
logical appeal to the people on the strength
of the argument they can present but instead
must resort to prejudice-to actual dishonesty
in at least one instance, as I shall
demonstrate-and -to : misleading . argument
in. order to try to frighten people by the
bogies they create or the picture they conjure
up of.' the dreadful -things which; this
wicked House of Representatives, chosen by
the people, will:: do . to the people of
Australia.. Let me go into that niatter in a little more
detail. The case for No reads:
Vote NO because:
We do'not need more parliamentarians.
Australia is already over-governed.
SA Yes vote would be a vote against the
interests of the States, particularly the small
States, and country districts.
Honourable members will note the appeal
there to people in. the smaller States. The
supporters of the No case direct a sectional
appeal to country interests. Let us see how
these arguments stand. up to the most superficial
analysis, and I would hope that my
analysis could go a good deal deeper than
that but it does not have to go very deep
in order to explode the arguments for the
No ' case. First I deal with the proposition
that we do not need more parliamentarians,
stated ' quite absolutely without any reference
to this. point of time or any other
point, of time. The same argument. could
be applied with as much logic when the
population of Australia is 20 million, not
building up to 20 million at the 11.5
million stage as we are now. If that is the
strength of -the argument it can apply at
any time. When is the time that you need
more parliamentarians? This Parliament has
not shown itself over eager to increase its
size during the period of our federation.
In fact, since 1901 when the federation
was formed there has been only one substantial
increase in the size of this Parliament.
The House of Representatives numbered
seventy-five when the Parliament was
first constituted. The number had actually
declined to seventy-four when in 1948 the
Government of the day decided that it had
become necessary, for a variety of causes,
to increase the size of the Parliament. There
was a substantial increase in the numbers
in the House of Representatives to 121.
Thswas done because the House had not
been touched for forty-seven years.
If this Parliament runs its normal
course, by the time of the next election
twenty years will have elapsed since the
Parliament. was last increased, and our
population will have increased by almost
We are not proposing a major increase.
We have set a limit on the increase
we can achieve. We say that there must
bme emnobt efre.. wI esr trtehsas n th8a5t,, 0 0b0e cpaeursseo nisf fwoer reeaacdh
the No case we get a picture of this Parliament
increasing step by step every few
years. It is no ' t in the nature of the animal
for that to happen, as we know. It -is very
rare to find all parties in ' the Parliament
supporting a proposal, as -they have on this
occasion. * It is' rare to find a government
and an* opposition saying at the same time:
This is what we should do in relation to
the Parliament'. It is even rare to find a
situation in which a redistribution of electorates,
despite the fact that some may have become disproportionately large in relation
to others, should be carried out. They
should be carried out. There has not been,
on an average, a redistribution every six
years in the life of the federation. Usually,
changes have merely been in the boundaries.
Only on one occasion, as I have mentioned,
has there been a significant change in the
number of members.
I said that I would demonstrate that
there is at least one quite dishonest statement
in this document. It is to be found on
the first page of -the No case. It is this:
In this referendum the Government wants you
to remove this safeguard-
That is, the nexusfrom
the Constitution. If you do that, you will
be destroying the only braking device against
unnecessary increases in the size of the National
Parliament. How can men of honesty say that, when
all honourable members know that part of
our proposal is the provision that we cannot
increase the number of members beyond
the point where -there are fewer than 85,000
persons in each electorate. This just baffles
me. Either those who prepared this case
have not understood the proposal or this
is an entirely dishonest presentation of the
facts. There is a braking device against unnecessary
increases and that braking device
is the size of the Australian population.
The No case goes, on to state:
Moreover, if you vote NO and retain t" i nexus
provision, you will preserve the position and
power of the Senate and will prevent the Senate
from being weakened.
This is a picture conjured up to frighten
people into believing that this upper chamber
is to be weakened and shorn of its
authority. Will anybody who reads this
document pause to ask: If this statement
is correct why is it that forty-five out of
fifty-two of these senators whose powers
are going to be weakened have joined in
supporting the Yes case? I hope that in
a democratic system majorities still count
for something, and when they are overwhelming
majorities I hope that they will
have some persuasive effect. I have no need
to labour the point, Mr Acting Speaker. If
the Senate were in serious danger of having
its power or. authority weakened by this
proposal, would the overwhelming majority
of senators have joined in supporting it?
I come now to the next argument in the
No case. It states:
Always think . of the Senate as the States
Assembly, which was its name in the draft Constitution.
It is your House, designed to protect
the interests of your State. Thus any attack on
the Senate is an attack on the protection of the
interests of your State in the Federal Parliament.
The first comment I make on thai statement
is that all honourable members in
this. place, with the. exception of my friends
the honourable member for the Australian
Capital Territory ( Mr J. R. Fraser) and the
honourable member for the Northern Territory
( Mr Calder), are representatives from
individual States of the Commonwealth. If
this proposal were an attack upon the
position of the States would we have had
a unanimous vote in this House by people
who are elected from States, who are
representatives of States, and who are
accountable to electorates in those States?
The question has only to be put against
the facts for the answer to -be automatically
supplied. I can go further: The Senate has
always been regarded as an additional safeguard
for the States-as a custodian of
State rights. If the interests of the States
were threatened by our proposal would we
have had forty-five out of fifty-two senators,
elected as representatives of those States and
charged with the role-as they see it-of
safeguarding the interests of the . States,
joining in this proposal with us?
The next point refers to the' interests of
country districts: Here again the bogy has
been conjured up: ' Don't vote Yes because
if you do terrible things will be done to
the country electorates'.. In each of the
three parties constituting this. House we
have representatives of country electorates.
Some are in' the Country,, Party-as' the
name implies. The Labor Party. -certainly
can claim to have representatives from
rural electorates. And of course'. there are
many in the Liberal Party. Do those representatives
of rural electorates consider that
rural interests are being threatened by this
proposal? If they do, it is very odd . that they
should have joined in a unanimous vote on
this matter in this chamber. Again, this
argument ' just does not stand up to
examination. In the time available . to me I cannot go
through all the arguments set out in this
document. I do not avoid any. of the . difficult
arguments. I ' have referred to what the authors of the document have set out as
being the central propositions favouring
a No vote.. However, I would like to refer
honourable members to the passage appearing
on the second page-of the No case.
There the authors have set out what they
consider . the growth in numbers will be
in steps over a period of years. I have
already pointed out that this is not the
way that this system works-as the history
of our federation has demonstrated. It is
rare for the Parliament to increase ' its size.
1 repeat that it has been done but once
in the history of our federation. I cannot
see-and I am a fairly seasoned politician
in this place-the Parliament, or for that
matter governments, coming along very
frequently with endeavours to increase-the
size of the Parliament-not when we consider
all the discomfort involved in the
procedure of redistribution of electorates
and all the other implications of that process.
Let me just mention one of the more
important implications. Inside this chamber
there is a check-an inbuilt safeguard.
Three parties are represented. Each of those
parties, understandably and very properly,
watches . closely the movements, in the
numbers of electors and the size of electorates.
If any of the three parties, came to
the conclusion that what was being proposed
was. unfair or unreasonable, the parliamentary:
action which it could take, either
here or in what is, now almost chronically
an evenly divided Senate, could have the
effect of checking the process in the lower
house. Let me give an illustration; We are
a coalition Government. If we brought'forward
proposals for ' an increase in the. size
of Parliament ' which our colleagues in the
Country Party felt would work ' seriously
to their detriment, they would not join with
us in such a decision. Nor would we be
able to' give. effect to that proposal without
their support. On the other hand, if what we
proposed seemed unreasonable to the'meinm-
6ers of whichever party happened to be
in opposition at the time, they could, with
the numbers that they could reasonably
count upon in the Senate, make the proposal
extremely difficult of achievement,
not merely, by their voting strength but by
the campaign they could wage in the electorates
throughout the country. Quite apart
from anything that the Constitution provides,
there is, as any politician in-this place
would' know; -an inbuilt check and a safeguard
against arbitrary, unreasonable
increases by either side: of-politics.
Someminor arguments have been introduced
into the No case and I even regret
hlaving to make. reference, ( o them becaiuse
they are in a sense petty, and almost' perile
in what they convey to; the piblic. However,
. these arguments are, put with: some
strength and . emphasis in . the, concluding
passages of the No . case. Honourable
members will find0 there a re'frence--1
deplore that it should have come from a
member of either House of the Parliament
-to increases, in parliamentar salaries and
the cost of government which allegedly will
flow.. ifthe nexus, is broken. On the last page
of, the., No case honourable members will
find it stated. that the last: increase in the
numbers of members of Parliament resulted
in. fewer. sitting days and that members' pay
increased from $ 3,000 to $ 7,000 a year.
Then there appear,' in capitals, the words:
' What next?' Does anybody seriously argue
th'at' the duties : and-responsibilities of-a
memrber of this'House have decreased since
1949, ' that being' the ' last time ' when there
was avote-on: the increase in the size of
the Parliament? : Certainly no member
present would accept that as a statement of
fact. We all know the : increase -in the
number and complexity of'matters with
which we,' as members of the. Parliament,
have: been called upon to deal.
Let us take the salary aspect. Why do
those . who . support the No case not. say
honestly in this ' document that the period
to which' they ' are referring is between
1947, when the pay of a member of Parliament
was fixed'at $ 3,000, and 1967, when
it siands at $ 7,000? ' Why do they not go
onh'to say that' over that period, there have
been' quite' substantial increases in the basic
wage? [ Extension ' of time granted.] I thank
the House for its indulgence. These facts are
certainly relevant ' to the argument and are
of general' interest to honourable members.
The increase in the salary of a'member of
Parliament over the period' from 1947 to
1967 has been 133%.' Over the same period
the -basic wage hais been increased by
201%, that is, from $ 10.90 to $ 32.80. But
what is more' significant-we are " dealing
now with : the : community as a wholeis
the mihovement in the average weekly
wage. Betwe'n 1947 and 1967 the increase in average weekly wages was of the order
of 285%. This Parliament has not been
greedy. I shall not labour the point. Whatever
cheap advantage those who joined in
the No " case seek to ' gain from this point,
I. say that it'is not substantiated by the
facts. . Mr Whitlam-The cost of this House is
30c per head . of population.
SMr HAROLD HOLT-I ' will come to
that. ' Those-who have put-forward the No
case' begin their great peroration by saying:
' Vote no-we do not need more parliamentarians'.
We say that at the present time
we ' do not need more senators. An overwhelming
majority of senators-forty-five
to seven-join with us -in saying that. They
continue: ' Vote no-protect the small
States and country districts'. I-have already
referred to that argument, and I hope that
I have demolished it. They also say: ' Vote
no-prevent unnecessary increases in the
size : of the House of Representatives'. In
principle at leastfwe can agree with them
here. We do hot want unnecessary increases
in the'; size of the House of Representatives.
and we have taken the responsibility of proposing;
for the first time, a limit,. not previously
imposed"' by the Constitution, upon
the size ' to which the House of Representatives
may grow. Their final adjuration is:
' Vote'no-prevent unnecessary increases in
the cost of. government.' This terrible
burden of. the cost of government! Let me
give the. House the relevant figure.
' The total cost of the House of Representatives.
and. the. Senate works out at
approximately .40c per head of population
or, in the old currency with . which some of
us are more familiar, .4s. a year. That is a
shade . more . than the . price of a packet of
cigarettes., That . figure works out at less
than a quarter of Ic for each member of
Parliament:, a year. I know that there are
some cynics: in . the ' community who say
that honourable members are not worth
much. more than that. They can have that
opinion' of us, but they can scarcely argue
that. it is aheavy financial burden upon
them. If. we . were to increase the size of
the Parliament by thirteen . or fourteen
members two years from now-
Mr. Irwin-The cost would go up by one
fag. Mr HAROLD HOLT-I hope that honourable
members-would not go up in smoke.
The additional cost would only be of the
order of 3c or 4c per head of population.
Perhaps we have dealt somewhat flippantly
with some of these arguments. Frankly, if
they are examined carefully it is difficult to
understand how a serious-minded body of
men could argue them seriously. I say that
it is not their purpose to do so. Their
purpose is to create an atmosphere of
prejudice and fear and to play up bogies
which will frighten people into casting a
No vote, because history has shown that the
Australian electorate tends to say no when
it is in the slightest doubt as to what should
be done about a proposed change in the
Constitution. I come to my final point. I have faith in
the good sense and the' maturity of the
Australian electorate. I am sure that the
Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Country Party and the Acting Leader of
the Country Party, who is with us tonight,
think the same. I believe that we have an
electorate which has increasingly demonstrated
itself to have become much more
mature on political issues. I believe the
people will dismiss as a lot of fustian the
sort of argument, based on prejudice and
fear, with which their intelligences have
been insulted by those who have put forward
the No case. We on the Yes side have not
tried to put forward a glamour case. We
put calmly, temperately, moderately and
logically the case that we see for a commonsense
and practical parliamentary reform.
Because I believe that the Australian electorate
is sufficiently mature to weigh these
considerations, I am confident of the outcome
when the referendum vote is taken
on this nexus proposal.
BY AUTHORrITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA, A. C. T.