AUSTRALIAN WiOMEN'S LIBERAL CLUB, MELBOURNE V " ARY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR., HARCLD HOLT 24TH MAY, 1967
Lady Coles, Sir Henry, Parliamentary colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen:
First, may I thank you on behalf of Mrs. Holt and myself very warmly
for that gracious welcome you gave to us and for all the friendly support that
this received from those around the room. Secondly, may I join with you in
the congratulations you have expressed to our good friend Henry. It was a great
joy to me, I can assure you, not only to see him back again, but for the proof
it brought that Liberal support was as strong in this State as it has ever been.
And for him to achieve that after twelve years of office and some difficult
decisions, as I said to him at the time, or said publicly at the time, was a
personal triumph and a notable political achievement. And this State can count
itself fortunate that we have his sane, balanced, progressive leadership for the
years that lie ahead I would think as mar y years as he cares to choose on
the form that is so far disclosed.
And may I also congratulate Mrs. Goble on having been elected and I
say this in an Australian GVomen's Liberal Club. Vie are becoming more
enlightened I think as we go on, we Liberals. WVe managed to elect a very able
lady to the House of Representatives, the first time we've had one there for
many years. In the Senate where we can organise these things rather better,
of course, we are well represented by several lady Senators and I am glad to
see Senator Breen here with us today and our joint friend Ivy ' iedgwood who
chairs the Government Members' education Committee is also a very significant
and valuable figure in the work of our Party. So that Henry and I have good
cause to say thank you for what you are doing in giving us your support and
from time to time sending from your membership people who can be good and
worthy representatives in the Parliament.
It sometimes makes me feel a little uncomfortable to realise that more
than half my life has been spent in the national Parliament and in my early days,
the only effective organisation we had in this State was the AWomen's organisation
the Australian Viomen's National League as it was in those days. And I recall
with great appreciation and gratitude the strength of support which they gave to
us at that time.
Sir Henry may be interested to know that at one stage when my electorate
had become rather enlarged and I represented 80, 000 voters, 48, 000 of them
were women voters, 32, 000 men voters. That gave a substantial majority of
three lady voters to two men voters. I don't draw any significance from that
because things have balanced out since that time and we've managed to maintain
much the same sort of majority. But it gave me good reason to dwell on the
value of the women voters in a particular electorate and on the support which
came to us at the time from the women's organisation. And you've gone on
giving us that loyal support down through the years.
Now, after seventeen years of Liberal leadership I think we can all take
some pride and a modest satisfaction in the state of our own Australia and those
of us who have supported Liberal policies and Liberal leadership through ' hat
period, either in the Federal or the State sphere, can justly claim that this has
made a notable and significant contribution to the Australia of today. And
whatever test you care to apply, I think we can fairly claim that this leadership,
these liberal policies, have been good for Australia. 2/
In the material tests we've more than doubled the gross national product
of the country, we've developed the highest percentage of home ownership to
be found in the more conspicuous evidence of an affluent society. We are a
fortunaite people. And I would only hope and wish that sometimes those who are
so critical of what they find in Australia would pause and count the blessings
they enjoy in this country. It is I think unfortunately a weakness in our national
life at the present time that we are always looking for trouble and the things
that can be criticised rather than taking stock of how well we stand as a country
and as a people and in comparison wi-th others around the world.
However, having got that comment off my chest, let me turn to a couple
of matters which are of topical significance politically for us. One of course
is the political event immediately ahead, the referendum. I hope you won't
mind me saying a few words about this because we haven't had the kind of
opportunities we would normally enjoy in an election campaign of getting our
message across as widely as we would wish. No political party has had the
financial resources to conduct a large campaign on this matter and yet it does
have an importance for good government in Australia and for Australia's standing
in the eyes of the rest of the world.
And when I say that I refer to two proposals I will take them in their
inverse order, having stated them as I have, because I do believe that what we
decide about the aborigine proposal will affect Australia's standing in the eyes
of the rest of the world. I have every confidence that there will be an overwhelming
YES vote. It is unthinkable that it could be otherwise. The purpose of the
proposal is to remove from the Constitution references which in the one case
produce an outmoded and outdated situation that is the item which talks
about aborigines not being counted in relation to a census. Well, this was
inserted in the Constitution at a time when aborigine people couldn't effectively
be counted they were living either a tribal life or a nomadic life, and there
weren't the facilities for checking that there are today. And it has no continuing
place in a modern Australian Constitution.
The other one which we suggest to be excluded is the only other reference
which appears in the Constitution to aborigines, and although properly understood,
it doesn't discriminate unfavourably against aborigine people it is regarc~ d
widely both inside this country and outside this country as having that effect.
And because we can still deal satisfactorily by the combined efforts of the
Commonwealth and State Governments with the problems of people of aboriginal
race without these specific references in the Constitution, and because there
is lingering around the world a belief that somehow through this provision we
discriminate against people of aboriginal race, we thought it should be out of
the written text of the Constitution.
But the other proposal is the one which causes more complexity for people.
In the first place, it has associated with it the word " nexus". Some people have
doubts as to just what " nexus" means, what its political or Constitutional
significance may be. But it is really quite a simple business. In the early
stages % lien the Constitution was being drafted, there was a feeling that more
States would be created. So that there should not be an enlargement of the
Senate relative to the House of Representatives which would diminish the stature
of the House of Representatives, the planners of those days thought there ought
to be a provision ensuring that the number of members of the House of
Representatives was always at least twice that of the members of .~ ae
' Well, as time has gone on, although there has been a lot of talk abou States,
it hasn't come as yet to anything and there is no increase in the number of
States in sight. But there lingers on in the Constitution this provision which
throws on the House of Representatives the neceEsity, if at any time it wants to
increase its numbers, of increasing the Senate to the extent of half of any
increase in the size of the House of Representatives. o 3/
Now,, I don't think there is much doubt around the community that a Senate
of 60, and it was enlarged to 60 from 36 back in 1948, is large enough for
Australia's needs at this time. -1he are not proposing that the Senate can never
be increased. Vie are saying that we don't want to have to increase it every
time growth in population and other f'actors would appear to make desirable some
increase in the size of the House of Representatives. And so we want to gret rid
of this formal obligation that we must increase the Senate any time we increase
the House of Representatives. Very understandably, there are people who might
think, "' Well, in those circumstances, won't there be a danger that the Senate
will be reduced to too small a size, seeing that the Constitution at the moment
only provides for a minimum of 36 Senators, whereas you have 60 in practice,
and won't it leave it open to the House of Representatives to just increase its
numbers at will to any size it chooses?" In order to meet that kind of concern,
we have inserted two new safeguardsi or propose to insert them if the people
will only give the affirmative vote we need. One safeguard is that the
minimum number of Senators prescribed by the Constitution will henceforth
be 60 as is the present number in the Senate, not 36 as the present Constitutional
provision requires. And the sece-nd thing, is that we say you can't increase the
size of the House of Representatives beyond a point taiat would leave a mk. I'mum
of 85, 000 persons on average to e;-ch electorate. Now that is a very effective
brake on the size of the House of Representatives.
The authors of the NO case have made a quite misleading, and I would say,
dishonest reference in the case that if the " nexus" is removed the one braking
device in the Constitution groes with-it. iWell, I've already pointed out that
there is this other very effective braking device, that you can't just go on
increasing the size of the House of Representa-tives inordinately. It must relate
to a minimum of 85, 000 persons. Now, how does that compare with other
countries? In 1948, when the size of the House was increased, the increased House
produced an average of 66, 000 persons. At the present time, there is an
average of 94, 000 and if the Parliament runs its full course, it will get up to
97, 003, and of course as other years go on, unless some change is made, the
number to be represented by any one member will go on increasing.
Well, you may ask why do we need more members, and in any event, why
should we do this now? As to whether we need more, that's a practical question
which I think could be sensibly argued. You need effective representation.
When you get the member trying to represent too many people,. the individual
elector doesn't get the same service that he or she is entitled to expect. And
already the Australian National Parliamentarian is representing more people
than a member of the House of Commons.
Now, in the United States Parliament, they represent many more people
but, in order to meet that situatiop, they had to build up big staffs around the
member and instead of being able to get to your member to discuss your problems
with him, you are liable to be with a second, or first, second, third or fourth
secretary dealing with your particular situation. Now that's not in the British
tradit-on and practice and we don't think Australians, accustomed to getting a
persor. al response from their own member, would welcome the intrusion of some
official betwveen uhenm ad the man or woman they have elected. And so we have
picked on what seemrs tc, to be a reasonable minircum. You don't have to
have a member C75, 000. It can go higher thalt. But you can't
make more mrembers than a mpinimum of 85, 000 would stipulate. So there is
this safeguard in the Constitution. 9 4/
And there can be no argument e& y one of us who has been in the
Parliament for many years would be Able to affirm quite definitely that the
complexity, the number, the scope of Commonwealth activities, these things,
have grown enormously. As Henry and his colleagues here will know, in many
fields which were originally exclusive to the States, not from choice on the part
of the States but simply because of the demands of the electorate and financial
and other limitations the Commonwealth has been brought into such fields as
education, housing, into health and a variety of other matters. And then, of
course, immigation. That programme has brought with it a whole range of new
problems, and at the same time added many people who are not on the rolls
as voters but whose needs have to be taken care of. With Australia's involvement
in military operations and other commitments around the world, again you have
repatriation problems, personnel problems of men and women in the Services,
-which all have to be dealt with.
But this, I repeat, is a matter of judgment. Whether we do it now, whether
we do it five years, whether we do it ten years, fifteen years hence, is something
for the Parliament to decide. The fact of the matter is that until you remove the
nexus ( tape damaged) at the same time as you increase the size of the
House of Representatives. And don't imagine that this is something that is going
to happen very often. It's only happened once up till now in the history of our
whole Federation. It took 47 years, from 1901, before the sizeof the Parliament
was increased. If we go on to the next election, the House running its normal
course, it woWd be 20 years since there was any increase, and the most that
is proposed would be an increase of the order of 12, 13 or 14 members in the
House without any addition to the Senate.
WNell, you may say, why should we be bothering about this now? First,
I would say, and on the evidence that we do this so rarely, it is very difficult
to get a time when the three principal parties are all agreed that a change of
this sort should be made and that this is the opportune time to do it. If this
opportunity slips by I don't know when it* will occur again.
The second thing is that we must have a redistribution, of the electorates,
not to gain any political advantage for one party or another, but simply because
over the years, and with the enormous growth around Australian cities in
particular, they have become quite unbalanced. Mr. Calwell and I both
represent, I think, electorates with less than 40, 000 voters, but Billy Snedden
out in Bruce represents now well over 100, .000 by the time we get to the next
election it will be nearer 120, COO. And this is not an isolated instance. Wherever
the new growth has occurred around the capital cities, you find these abnormally
enlarged electorates. In the heart of the cities, as people become more
prosperous, they've tended to move out, and so the inner electorates have
become smaller. Common decency and justice demand of us that we have a
redistribution of electorates to help to balance out the representation. If we
are going to do that, and if we have at any time over the next several years
in contemplation some modest addition to the number of members of the
Parliament, then surely it is appropriate we decide on that first and then have
a redistribution on the basis of the numbers with which we agree should be
brought into our account. And this is why, a very rare event for the Australian
Parliament, you find the three leaders of the three principal Parties, the Liberal
Party, the Labor Party and the Country Party, all coming to you urging at the
one time that you give a Y21S vote on both of these proposals.
Now the opponents are to be found in the ranks of the Democratic Labor
Party, the two Senators in Canberra, and in a few Liberal and Country Party
Senators who haven't gone along with the majority. In the House of Representatives
and this I think is an impressive fact the voting in favour was unanimous, 9 0
from all parties from all around Australia. In the Senate, although there is
this handful of Senators who are taking the opposite line, the voting was 45 in
favour to 7 against. And I think most people who have any doubts on this matter
might have sufficient faith in the judgment of their representative and the
democratic system to feel that when you get such an overwhelming support in
favour of proposals as is evidenced in those voting figures, you can go along
-Safely with what is recommended to you.
I don't want to spend a great deal of time on the NO case, but there are
just two or thlree aspects which I would like you to carry in your mind in case
you encounter some waverers yourself. The NO case, the official NO case as
printed, is I believe, a deplorable piece of argumentative presentation. I would
have hoped that having a case prepared by members from Parliament, in this
case from the Senate, we would have had a calm, logical analysis of the case,
the arguments for, the arguments against, and we have tried to do that in the
YZES case perhaps it has made it a rather more tedious and duller document
for people to read but at least anybody who takes the trouble to go through it
will find that this is the way in which the case has been presented. But the NO
case sets out to conjure up all the fears, all the bogies, the whole string of the
cliches you'd expect to find in some of the less responsible areas of the press
about politicians too many politicians and howmuch they cost us, what damage
we'Ire going to do to the Senate, and the damage-we're going to do to country
interests. Well, let me take a few of those arguments in reverse order. The country
interests -there are representatives from country electorates in the House of
Representatives in each of the three Parties. The Country Party itself, of course.
I n the Liberal Party we have as many representatives from country electorates,
and the Labor Party has members from country electorates. And yet every one
of those representatives from a country electorate ( tape damaged) a unanimous
vote. The Senate is traditionally regarded as the custodian of the interests of the
States, and yet, here again I repeat, 45 out of 52 voted in support of this. So
you don't get much comfort out of that argument if you are a NO voter. Well,
then, without going through all the rest of them, let me just say a word about the
cost of all this. A great bogey is conjured up: " We've got enough Parliamentarians,
we don't want more. It's going to cost us more in taxes. Well, I gave a figure
in the House of Representatives the other night that the cost of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate taken together worked out at less than 40 cents
a year per head of the population as I put it just a little more than the price of
a packet of cigarettes. And the cost of an individual senator or member of the
House of Representatives and this includes his travelling expenses and matters
of that sort worked out at about J of one cent.
Now if we were going to increase members by about 12 or 14, the cost of
those extra members of the House of Representatives would be somewhere between
3 and 4 cents per head of population. I don't think that's going to represent too
much of a financial burden on anybody. A par in the " Melbourne Herald" on
Saturday night questioned my figure of 40 cents and said the figure was nearer
79 cents. Well, my information had been given to me by officials in my own
office having studied the Year Book which sets out the cost of Parliamentary
government. I went over it again myself today and I found the only way you could
build up the cost of the House and the Senate was by including furniture and
services and matters of that sort. So I threw those in too. The argument was
about additional members of Parliament, so you don't bring in the cost of the
extra salaries of Ministers and extra Ministerial travel because the argument is
not whether we have more Ministers we are not likely to have any more
Ministers even if the number of the House increases slightly. And even throwing
that in, it got up to a figure of the two Houses combined of under 50 cents or if you
like a year. So don't be frightened by that particular bogey. 6/
6.
Now, what I would like to say before I conclude and it does have a
reference to the Senate is a word or two about the course of conduct puvzsued
by the Senate in this last Session of Parliament. As you know we came back from
the last elections with a record majority, an all-time record majority in the House
of Representatives. If ever a Government was entitled to claim that the people
had given it authority, a mandate to govern, we could fairly claim that. And we
have set quite briskly about the business of putting into effect the policy undertakings
we gave at the election time. Several of them have already been given
effect and others are well advanced, but we are finding increasingly that the
composition of the Senate at present, in which you have the produce unfortunately
of two deaths of staunch Liberal Senators, a situation now where the Australian
Labor Party with the help either of an independent Senator, Senator Turnbull,
or one of our own Liberal Senators who decides to desert us on a particular
occasion in order to record a vote against us, or any one of that combination of
the ALP plus the DLP can defeat the Government in the Senate.
Now, the Senate was never designed for that course of conduct. It was
designed es a House of Review so that it could study in a more leisurely way
legislation coming up from the House of Representatives and send back suggestions
for the consideration of the House of Representatives. It was designed, in
addition, to see that the rights of the States were not trampled upon. But it was
never intended to act as a block upon the legislative process and the capacity to
govern of a democratically elected government. And I would never have assumed
that a Labor Party which is pledged to abolish the Senate, would turn to the
Senate, to use the Senate to defeat a democratic ally elected Government not
just on some monor matter or some clause in a Bill but to defeat the financial
programme of a government. Now I can say to his credit that this would never
have been acceptable to the former Labor Leader, Arthur Calwell. Nor do I
know any Labor leader in my time in Parliament who would have used the Senate
or his numbers in the Senate in this way. ii. hen I have heard Mr. W. hitlam speak
on occasion of the respective positions of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, it would have been difficult to imagine that he would have lent
himself as he has in recent times to this veto on the bill we put through in
relation to postal charges.
Now, we all know that increases in postal rates are urpopular. Of course
they are. No government likes to put up charges for the services it gives. But
if the wage bill is continuing to rise, and the Post Office is a very large user of
labour and cannot escape the extra costs which regular increases coming out of
the Arbitration Commission bring to its employees, then there has to be some
adjustment. In point of fact, over the period since 1959, when these charges were
last raised, consumer services have gone up on an average 22/ 0. In the Post
Office the increase proposed was in the order of 1570 to meet the growing costs
and to offset losses which were likely to accumulate. But the merits of the proposal
is another matter to argue and we as an elected government have to accept
responsibility for these decisions we take. What I'm putting to you now as a matter
of high principle is whether a government, democratically elected as oulshas
been, should be subjected to the resistance and the effective veto of a chance
majority from a hostile political force in the Senate. I believe that, if the Senate
pursues this course already, of course, it will have thrown out of balance our
Budgeting for the next financial year we will have to review the whole financial
position as a consequence of the denial to us of the extra revenue we believed to
have been needed. But it is set now on a collision course with the government and
with the House of Representatives, and is building up a constitutional issue of
major dimension between the two Houses. I would hope that inside our own Party
there is a clear appreciation that this is more than a piece of Party manoeuvring,
more than an attempt to score a political point or two. The Senate would appear
under the new Labor leadership to have set itself quite resolutely upon a course
which must inevitably bring it into collision with the House of Representatives and
with a democratically elected majority of record proportions. 7/
,4 7.
Now, how we deal with this in the future remains to be seen, but I hope
we shall have your sympathetic understanding in any action that we have to
take in relation to it.
Now, that took me rather longer, Lady Coles, than I had intended to
occupy you. Thank you for your very attentive hearing; thank you again
all of you for the support you continue to brin. to our Liberal Party,