CONSTITU'TION AlTERAl ION STIULTANOUS ELECT IONS,) i1 1 97
SECOND R) EADING SPEECH
1 3) p27/ I1j\
TH'. E HONOUIRABIE G. WHITLAN. C. P.
PR?. IME MINISTER
MR SPEAKER, I MOVE:
T'IAT THIS BILL BIE READ A SECOND TIME.
THIS BILL IS IDENTICAL WITH ' THAT INTRODUCI: I) INTO TillS
HOUSE BY ME ON 11 FEBRUARY 1975 AND PASSEI: D BY AN ABISOLUTE
MAJORITY ON 18 FEPR?. UARY. THIE SENATE RECEIVED TiHAT IPTL . ON
19 FEBRUARY AND REFUSED IT A SECOND REA1) DING ON 25 F. VB3UARYo
I SHALL NOT TAKE THE TIME OF THE HOUSE TO PUT
FORWARD AGAIN THE REASONS THAT HAVE LED TIHE GOVERNNENT TO
RESUBMIT TIIS LEGISLATION. THEY ARE SOUND AND REASONED. THEY
WERE SPELT OUT BY ME IN MY SECOND READING SPEECH IN THiE HOUSE,
AND IHONOURABLE MEMBERS HAVE THEM RECORDED IN IIANSARD
PP 53-54 OF 11 FEBRUARY 1975.
THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS FOR MORETON, DARLING DOWNS
AND BENNELONG WHO SPOKE FOR THE OPPOSITION ON THE 13BILL EAILIER
THIS YEAR CLAIMED THAT THEY OPPOSED IT BECAUSE S] IMULTANEOUS
ELECTIONS WOULD DISTURB THE IRELATIONSHIP BFTI'WEEN THE TWO HOUSES,
DAMAGE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE SENATE AND ALTER ITS ROLE.
THllS, OF COURSE, IS NOT SO. THE INDEPENDENCE OF Tl'E
SENATE WAS NOT FOUNDED ON ELECTIONS BEING HELD FOR TIHE TWO
HOUSES A'T' DIFFERENT TIMES. IT IS CLEARI THIAT TIIE FR?. AMERS , OOFU R
CONSTITUTION DID NOT REGARD SEPARATE ELECTIONS IN TillS SENSE AS
BASIC TO TiHE SENATE' S ROLE AS AN INDEFENDENT IHOUSEF. fNDEEP.
BEFORE TliE JOINT ARLIAMENTARY CONN'ITTEf: E ON CONSTITl'TI. ONAll
REVIEW RRCOMNKNDED THIS . PARTICULAR~ l HEFORM IN 1959 WITH ONLY
ONJ". MI IKB ISSENTING THERE HAD BERN ONlY T1REE OCCASIKS ON
WHICH AN ELECTION HA BERN HELD TO ELECTMCHBR1? S OF ONE HOSI;:
ONLY THOSE FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 1929 AN 195.1
AND FOR THE SENATE IN 1953.
SINCE 1959, IOWEVFR, THERE HAVE BEEN NO 1: SS THAN
NINE NATIONAL ELECTIONS, FOUR OF TIN FOR THIS HO0USE AIONEK
AND THREE OF THEN O? THE SENATE ALONE,
I POINT OUT ALSO THAT THE JOINT COMMI. TT'E CONCLUDI)
THAT THE ORIGINAL CONCKPT OF TiHE SENATE' S ROLE AS A STATE S
HOUSE HAD NOT BEEN REALISED; NOR HAD ITS INTENDED ROLE AS A
HOUSE OF REVIEW THE WEAPON OF REJECTION HAD ALWAYS BEEN IN
PAITY HANDS. IT WAS THE JOINT COMMITTEE' S VIEW THAT SINULTANEOUS
ELECTIONS WOULD BENEFIT IT. ESPONSTHk1E GOVERNMENT IN MANY WAYS.
APART FRO N THE OBVIOUS CONVENIENCE., SIMULTANEOUS KLECTIONS
WOULD PROOTE GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WIL KHNEO ST PRCENT
EXPRESS. ON OF THE WILL OF TIHE PEOPLE AND DISCOURAGE CAPICIOUS
IEJECTION OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI VES.
IN SHOUT, THE RTGHTS AND INDEPENDENCE OF T E SENATE
WILL IN NO WAY BE AHOGATED BY THIS BILL. BUP THE BILL WIL. L
ENABLE THE ELECTORS TO RE-CONSIDER WHETHER. TiEY WISH TO CONTINU i:
TO HAVE FREQUENT AND COSTLY SEPARATE ELECTIONS FOR THE TWO
HOUSKS AS IS THE POS'TION NOW OR WHETHER TIEY WISII SIMULTANIOU-S
ELECTIONS TO 13K HI) FOR TH HOUSE OF I?. EPiHESNTAT. I VKS AND ONK
HALF OF ' I'llE SENATE,
I COMMEND THE BILL TO THE HOUS. K
ELECTORAL BILL
AT ITS JOINT SITTING ON 6 AUGUST 1974,
PARLIA' 1HNT PASSED THE COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT WHICH HAD)
BEEN ONE OF THE BILLS ON WHICH THE DOUBLE DISSOLUTION HAD BlEEN
GRANTED IN APRIL, 1974V THIE ACT PROVIDES THAT IN ANY ELECTORATE,
THE NUMBER OF VOTERS SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 10% ABOVE OR nELOW
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF \ VOTERS IN ALL THE ELECTORATES OF THE
STATE CONCERNEDV IN PASSING THE BILL, THE PARLIAMENT THEREFORE
DECIDED THAT THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONERS, IN ESTABLISHING THE
BOUNDARIES AT A REDISTRIBUTION, SHOULD BE PERMITTED A VARIATION
BETWEEN ELECTORATES WITHIN A STATE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE-TENTH
INSTEAD OF ONE-FIFTH VARIATION PERM4ITTED UNDER LEGISLATION THEN
EXISTING BY PASSING THE ACT THE PARLIAMENT INTENDED TO ENSURE
THAT TPE NUMBER~ OF ' VOTERS IN EACH ELECTORATE SHOULD BE MUCH
CLOSER TO THE IDEAL OF EOUALITY, THE PASSING OF THAT LEGIS--
LATION EXPRESSED SOMETHING RATHER THAN MORE THAN THE WILL OF THE
PARLIAMIENT, THE WILL OF BOTH HOUSES SITTING JOINTLY, IN A VERY
REAL SENSE IT EXPRESSED THE DECISION OF THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
BECAUSE AS I HAVE SAID, THE BILL FORMED ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR
THE DOUBLE DISSOLUTION AND WAS THEREFORE ONE OF THE ISSUES PUT
BEFORE THE PEOPLE AT THE ELECTIONS LAST M~ AY.
2
SPEAKING AT THE JOINT SITTING, SENATOR STEELE
HALL SAID: " IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE OPPOSITION PARTIES IN
BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT SET UP THE ELECTION AS A TEST FOR
THE GOVERNMENT, THEY SAID SO CLEARLY IN SO MANY WORDS AND AT
VARIOUS TIMES MENTIONED SPECIFIC ISSUES, THERE IS NO DOUBT
THAT THIS GOVERNMENT HAS A VERY FAIR CLAIM TO THE BILLS WHICH
IT IS PRESENTING TO THIS JOINT COMMITTEE THERE IS A VERY
REAL NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ISSUES ARE ONES TO WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT NOW HAS A VERY FAIR CLAIM ANY PERSON WHO STUDIES
THE HISTORY OF THE GENERATION OF THIS JOINT SITTING WILL KNOW
THAT ANYONE WHO STANDS AGAINST EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE STANDS
AGAINST HIS OWN POLITICAL FUTURE,.
AS A RESULT OF THAT JOINT SITTING AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CLEARLY EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE PEOPLE, THE COMMONWEALTH
ELECTORAL ACT BECAME THE LAW OF THE LAND, LAST WEEK, THE SENATE
REFUSED TO ADOPT REDISTRIBUTION PROPOSALS WHICH IMPLEMENTED THE
LAW, THE SENATE HAS TRIED TO ENSURE THAT THE LAW REMAINS
INOPERATIVE A DEAD LETTER, IN REJECTING THE PROPOSALS THE
SENATE HAS TRIED TO NULLIFY THE LAW OF THE LAND, THERE WAS NO
POINT IN SENDING THE BOUNDARIES BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER TO BE
REDRAWN, THE COUNTRY PARTY HAS MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT IT
WILL REJECT ANY REDISTRIBUTION AT ALL. WE THEREFORE PROPOSE TO
EMBODY THE PROPOSALS IN LEGISLATION. BY SO DOING ' E RE-ASSERT
THE INEVITABLE AND NECESSARY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE
PROPOSALS, BETWEEN THE ELECTORAL ACT PASSED AT THE JOINT SITTING
AND THE REDISTRIBUTION WITHOUT WHICH THAT ACT IS A NULLITY,
FURTHER, IN THE EVENT OF CONTINUED SENATE OBSTRUCTION, WE SHALL
ALLOW THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO
ENDORSE, AS THEY DID LAST HAY, THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF
REPRESENTATION, ,/ 3
IF THE SENATE AGAIN REJECTS THIS PRINCIPLE,
THAT REJECTION WILL AGAIN LE AN ISSUE ON WHICH THE PEOPLE
WILL BE ABLE TO PASS JUDGMENT,
THROUGHOUT THE DEBATE, IN BOTH HOUSES, NO SERIOUS
OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THESE PROPOSALS ON THE GROUNDS OF
UNFAIRNESS, THEY ARE SCRUPULOUSLY FAIR, IN THE WORDS OF
IR, MALCOLM M ACKERRAS, AN ACKNOWLEDGED ELECTORAL ANALYST:
' IN OVERALL POLITICAL TERMS, THE 1975 REDISTRIBUTION IS THE
FAIREST SET OF PROPOSED BOUNDARIES EVER TO BE PRESENTED TO
ANY AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT IN MY LIFETIME, THE COMMISSIONERS
HAVE BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO AVOID ANY SUGGESTION OF GERRYMANDERI
IG, THEY HAVE SET OUT TO DRAW BOUNDARIES SO PATENTLY
FAIR THAT REJECTION BY THE SENATE WOULD REFLECT DISCREDIT ON
THE SENATE NOT ON THE COMMISSIONERS,
I HAVE HEARD NO OBJECTION FROM ANY QUARTER TO THESE
PROPOSALS ON THE GROUNDS OF UNFAIRNESS, NO REFLECTION HAS
BEEN MADE ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE
SCRUPULOUS IMPARTIALITY WITH WHICH THEY HAVE CARRIED OUT.
THEIR WORK, .4
THE REDISTRIBUTION IS BOTH URGENT AND NECESSARY, AN
ELECTION HELD ON THE PRESENT BOUNDARIES WOULD BE A TRAVESTY.
I INVITE HONOURABLE " iEMIBERS TO CONSIDER HOW FLAGRANTLY THE
[ NUMBER OF VOTERS VARIES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ELECTORATES
AT PRESENT, IN QUEENSLAND HALF THE ELECTORATES, NINE OF
THE EIGHTEEN, DEPART BY MORE THAN 10% FROM THE QUOTA AND
FOUR DEPART BY MORE THAN 20%, I N i'Ew SOUTH WiALES, TWENTY OF
THE FORTY-FIVE ELECTORATES ARE MORE THAN j. 0 ABOVE OR BELOW
THE AVERAGE QUOTA, FOUR OF THEM ARE MORE THAN TWENTY PERCENT
ABOVE THE QUOTA AND TWO OF THEM ARE MORE THAN TWENTY PERCENT
BELOW IT, IN VICTORIA THERE IS A VARIATION GREATER THAN TEN
PERCENT IN FOURTEEN OF THE THIRTY-FOUR ELECTORATES AND A
VARIATION GREATER THAN TWENTY PERCENT IN SEVEN OF THEN.
IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA FOUR OF THE TWELVE ELECTORATES DEPART
BY MORE THAN TEN PERCENT FROM THE QUOTA AND TWO BY MORE THAN
TWENTY PERCENT,
IN EACH OF THESE STATES THE QUOTA FOR AN ELECTORATE IS
ABOUT 64 000 VOTERS, YET IN QUEENSLAND, THE ENROLMENT BETWEEN
THE LARGEST AND SMALLEST ELECTORATES VARIES BY I'' 3,000 VOTERS.
IN IlEW SOUTH WALES IT VARIES BY 35,000 VOTERS. IN VICTORIA
IT VARIES BY 38,000, IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA IT VARIES BY
31,000 VOTERS. THROUGHOUT AUSTRALIA, AND WITHIN PARTICULAR
STATES, SOME SEATS HAVE MORE THAN 70% MORE PEOPLE ON THE
ROLLS THAN OTHERS, THUS SOME PEOPLE'S VOTES ARE WORTH MORE
THAN 70% MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE'S. IN QUEENSLAND ONE SEAT
HAS MORE THAN TWICE AS HANY VOTERS AS ANOTHER, THIS IS
A DENIAL OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF DEMOCRACY AND A TRAVESTY
OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS,
LET ME GIVE SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FOR OUEENSLAND.
AS AT 25 APRIL, THE SEAT OF MACPHERSON HAD 94,024 ELECTORS
ON THE ROLL. BY CONTRAST, MARANOA HAD 46,456 ELECTORS.
KENNEDY HAD 50,890 ELECTORS, THAT IS THE KIND OF
VARIATION THAT OPERATED JUST AFTER THE LAST ELECTION,
LET US ASSUME HOWEVER, THAT THE PARLIAMENT RUNS ITS FULL
TERM, THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER HAS PROVIDED A PROJECTED
ENROLMENT AS AT MAY 1977 FOR THE THREE EXISTING SEATS WITH
THE HIGHEST ENROLMENTS.
AT APRIL 25, 1975 MACPHERSON HAD AN ENROLMENT OF
94,000, BY 1977 THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER FORECASTS IT
WILL BE 104,000, BOWMAN IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE FROM
79,000 TO 87,090 AND PETRIE FROM 77,000 TO 84,000, AN
ELECTION HELD IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE A MOCKERY.
THE DEBATE ON! THE PROPOSALS IN BOTH HOUSES ILLUSTRATED
VERY CLEARLY THE MOTIVES BEHIND THEIR REJECTION IN THE SENATE,
IT SHOWED HOW COMPLETELY THE LIBERAL PARTY HAD CAVED IN TO THE
PRESSURE OF ITS COALITION PARTNER, IN THIS HOUSE, NO SENIOR
LIBERAL INTERVENED. THEIR CASE, SUCH AS IT WAS, WAS LEFT TO
THE FLEDGLING MEMBER FOR BENNELONG, WHO SPOKE ON THE PROPOSALS
FOR THREE OF THE FIVE STATES CONCERNED, NEITHER THE LEADER OF
THE OPPOSITION NOR THE DEPUTY LEADER SPOKE, HOW COULD THEY?
THEIR OWN SEATS PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATE THE DISPARITIES WHICH
THE REDISTRIBUTION SEEKS TO REMOVE, THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
REPRESENTS 53,360 VOTERS IN ' IWANNON. THE DEPUTY LEADER REPRESENTS
79,665 VOTERS IN FLINDERS, lOW COULD THEY RECONCILE THEIR
INTERESTS?
-66-
THE DEPUTY LEADER'S VOTERS ARE WORTH ONLY
TWO-THIRDS THOSE OF HIS LEADER, THE LEADER'S VOTERS ARE
WORTH HALF AS MUCH AGAIN AS HIS DEPUTY'S, IT MIGHT BE
URGED THAT THE LEADER'S COUNTRY SEAT DESERVES SUCH AN
ADVANTAGE OVER THE DEPUTY LEADER'S METROPOLITAN SEAT, BOTH
OF THEM, HOWEVER, COME FROM A STATE WHERE A TOTALLY LIBERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS JUST PROCURED A REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL
DISTRICTS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, IN WHICH ENROLMENT
FOR COUNTRY DISTRICTS VARIES BETWEEN 23,561 AND 25,095 AND
FOR METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS BETWEEN 26,092 AND 29,353,
THUS A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT FREE FROM fNATIONAL COUNTRY PARTY
PRESSURE DOES NOT TOLERATE THE DISPARITIES WHICH EVEN THE
LEADER AND DEPUTY LEADER OF THE LIBERALS IN THIS PARLIAMENT
MUST ENDURE, iiOREOVER THE VICTORIAN DIVISION OF THE
LIBERAL PARTY ON 14 NOVEMBER LAST WROTE TO THE ELECTORAL
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE STATE AS FOLLOWS:
" GIVEN THE CRITERIA IN THE ACT, WE HAVE
TO AGREE WITH THE LABOR SUBMISSION OF A REDUCTION OF
ONE SEAT FROM THE RURAL AREA AND AN INCREASE OF ONE IN
THE SOUTH-EASTERN AREA,"
THE LIBERAL PARTY SUBMITTED A COUNTER
SUBMISSION WHICH WOULD HAVE PRODUCED ENROLMENTS FOR RURAL
DIVISIONS VARYING BETWEEN 59,/ 40 AND 68.923 AND FOR
METROPOLITAN DIVISIONS BETWEEN 59,379 AND 68,860, THE
LIBERAL PARTY ITSELF SUBMITTED THAT THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
SHOULD REPRESENT 63,464 VOTERS AND THE DEPUTY LEADER 62,81,5
LAST MONTH THEY REPRESENTED RESPECTIVELY 53,360 AND 79,665,
THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER'S PROJECTION FOR 1977 is 53,000 AND
81,0O00, * M i[ l i , e c""
j A--' fL L K b_
, i \ 51
i:\ I~ c'! 7
0
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, A LABOR VOTER IN IAKEFIELD IS WORTH
TWICE AS IMUCH AS A LIBERAL IN BONYTHON, THAT IS THE
REAL ISSUE, FOR THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF PARTISANSHIP.
TIHE VOTE OF A SOUTH AUSTRALIAN IS TO BE VALUED NOT BY PARTY
BUT BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE, NOT BY FOR WHOM HE VOTES ' UT
BY WHERE HE VOTES, AND OF COURSE THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES
TO THE PROPOSALS FOR THE TASMANIAN, QUEENSLAHD
AND VICTORIAN STATES.
!' HO OBJECTS TO THESE PROPOSALS? NOT THE AUSTRALIAN
LABOR PARTY, ALTHOUGH MY PARTY IN FACT IS WEAKENED ELECTORALLY
BY THE PROPOSED REDISTRIBUTION IN QUEENSLAND. NOT THE
LIBERAL PARTY WHICH MAY WELL BENEFIT, THE OBJECTION IS
FROM THE NATIONAL COUNTRY PARTY, WHICH MADE ONLY ONE OFFICIAL
SUBMISSION TO THE COMMISSIONERS, ITS SUBMISSION WAS NOT
ABOUT HOW. THE BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE DRAWN BUT WAS SIMPLY AN
OBJECTION TO ANY REDISTRIBUTION AT ALL,
UNDER THE PROPOSAL, ONE OF THE TEN NON-METROPOLITANSEATS
IN DUEENSLAND DISAPPEARS, YET THIS CHANGE IS NOT A
RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF THE NEW ELECTORAL ACT NOT A
RESULT OF THE REDUCTION OF THE PERMITTED VARIATION OF ONE--TENTH,
FOR THE FACT IS THAT EVEN WITH A 20 VARIATION THE COMMISSIONERS
COULD NOT HAVE DRAWN UP ANY SET OF PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD HAVE
PRESERVED TEN NON-METROPOLITAN SEATS, IT IS NOT THE ACT WHICH
HAS CREATED THIS SITUATION; IT IS THE PATTERN OF QUEENSLAND'S
DEVELOPMENT.
O
So LET'S BE QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. THE COUNTRY PARTY'S
OBJECTION IS NOT TO THE PROPOSALS BUT TO THE FACT OF ANY
REDISTRIBUTION AT ALL. THEY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN
PRESERVING A STATUS QUO WHICH UTTERLY VITIATES ELECTORAL
JUSTICE, IN VICTORIA, THE ELECTORATE OF WIMMERA HAD
19,200 ELECTORS AS AT 25 APRIL 1975, THE ELECTORATE OF
DIAMOND VALLEY HAD 87,522. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER'S
PROJECTIONS FOR 1977 IN THOSE ELECTORATES IS 92,000 AND
9,00 RESPECTIVELY., DIAMOND VALLEY IS OF COURSE ONE OF
THOSE SEATS WHICH THE LIBERAL PARTY MUST WIN IF IT IS EVER
AGAIN TO FORM A GOVERNMENT. LET THE LEADER OF THE
OPPOSITION JUSTIFY TO THE PEOPLE OF DIAMOND VALLEY WHY
THEIR VOTE IS DEBASED TO SCARCELY A'HALF T1E VALUE OF
THE VOTE OFT HEAA OPPTEEERR SSOOOF: , N) LLIIVVIINNGG EELLSSEEWWH-EERREE IINN VVIICCTTOORRIIAA.
WHY SHOULD THE LIBERAL PARTY COP THIS SORT OF
SITUATION? THEY KNOW THAT THE COUNTRY PARTY WILL ACCEPT
NO REDISTRIBUTION UNLESS IT DICTATES THE TERMS, LAST
WEEK THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION HAS HAD A SHARP LESSON
ON THE SORT OF LOYALTY HE CAN EXPECT FROM HIS COALITION
PARTNERS IF THEY FAIL TO GET THEIR WAY, IF THEY FEEL THEIR
NARROW AND SELFISH INTERESTS THREATENED IN ANY WAY,
THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION SHOULD TAKE SIR CHARLES COUIRT'S
PLIGHT TO HEART, IN GOING ALONG WITH THE COUNTRY PARTY,
IT IS DAMAGING ITSELF IN TWO WAYS, FIRST IT COMMITS
ITSELF TO DOMINATION BY THE COUNTRY PARTY; MORE. IMPORTANT,
IN THE EYES C THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE, IT COMMITS ITSELF TO
THE PERPETUATION OF A FLAGRANT BREACH OF ELECTORAL JUSTICE.
IN EFFECT IT COi" ITS ITSELF TO A GERRYMANDER BY OMISSION,
A GERRYMANDER OF WHICH THE LI: ERAL PARTY ITSELF IS THE
VICTIM EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS THE LABOR PARTY, AND ABOVE
ALL, IT DENIES TO THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE LIBERAL VOTERS
EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS LABOR VOTERS THE BASIC DEMOCRATIC
RIGHT OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION, S, ,/ 11
-11.-
I URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE LIBERAL PARTY TO
UPHOLD THE PRINCIPLE PUT FORWARD BY THE JOINT COMMIITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ESTABLISHED BY SIR ROBERT i'ENZIES
ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AND UNANIMOUSLY THE
COGMIITTEE REPORTED, "' THE COM; MITTEE FEELS CONSTRAINED TO SAY,
HOWEVER, THAT THE ONE-FIFTH MARGIN ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE QUOTA FOR A STATE WiHICH THE ACT
ALLOWS MAY DISTURB QUITE SERIOUSLY A
PRINCIPLE WHICH THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES TO BE BEYOND
QUESTION IN THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF A FEDERATION, NAMELY,
THAT THE VOTES OF THE ELECTORS SHOULD, AS FAR AS
POSSIBLE, BE ACCORDED EQUAL VALUE, THE FULL
APPLICATION OF THE MARGIN EACH WAY TO TWO
DIVISIONS IN A STATE COULD RESULT IN THE
NUMBER OF ELECTORS IN ONE DIVISION TOTALLING
PERCENT MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF ELECTORS
IN THE OTHER DIVISION, SUCH A POSSIBLE DISPARITY
IN THE VALUE OF VOTES IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE FULL REALISATION OF DEMOCRACY',
-12-
THnE COMMONHWEALTH ELECT ORAL ACT PASSED BY THE
JOINT SITTING UPHELD THAT PRINCIPLE TFHE FULL REALISATION
. TQfDEMOCRACY, THE PROPOSALS REJECTED L. AST WEEK UPHELD THAT
PRINCIPLE, THESE BILLS UPHOLD ! HE PRINCIPLE, LET US
ENSURE THAT THE~ NEXT ELECTION IS HELD ACCORDING TO T:
LAW OF THE LAND, LET US ENSURE THAT THE NEXT ELECTION
REPRESENTS A FULL REALISATION OF DEMOCRACY, By PRESENTrING
THESE BILLS; WE ARE GIVING THE LIBERAL PARTY A SECOND CHAM'CE
A CHANCE TO UPHOLD THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION,
A CHANCE TO REDEEMl THEMSELVES IN THE EYES OF THEIR OWN
SUPPORTERS' i