Embargo: 5 pia Sud-
PRIME MINISTER' S WEEKLY BROADCAST
IMO ARE THE CENTRALISTS?
SUNDAY 28 SEPTEMBER 1975
I made the point, last week that Mr Fraser is
having a hard time standing up to the bullying tactics of
the Country Party and some of the Premiers on the question
of passing the Budget. If Mr Fraser wants to prove himself
a true leader of the Opposition he must take a firm stand
on this issue and put an end to the damaging and irresponsible
speculation about an early election. He certainly failed that
particular test in his statements this week.
I mention that point again because we have seen in
the past few days an even more glaring example of Mr Fraser's
weakness under pressure. When it comes to matters of
-principle he gives in every time to the irresponsible
0 elements in the Opposition. As you know, in Melbourne this
week, there was another meeting of the Constitutional
Convention. The Convention first assembled two years ago
to study ways of improving the Constitution and making it
-a more modern and dfficient instrument in our federal system.
Every Government, Federal and State, every major political
party, took part in that Convention. It appointed committees
to get on with the work and agreed to meet again in Melbourne
this week to review the progress made. Only a month ago
Mr Fraser was saying in Parliament whaat a good thing the
Convention was and how strongly the Opposition supported it.
0 I'll quote his actual words:
" It is our hope said Mr Fraser " that this
Convention will be a useful forum in which Federal
and State representatives may constructively consider
0 constitutional reform in a way which will advance
the good government of Australia. The Constitutional
Convention... . will provide a place where constructive
efforts may be made to work out Constitutional reform...
The Opposition is glad ~ that the Constitutional Convention
will be reconvened in Melbourne in September."
Fine words. And that was just a month ago. But what
happened? When the Convention met on Wednesday it was
boycotted by the opposition and the four non-Labor States.
They didn't turn up. As soon as the Queensland Premier,
Mr Bjelke-Petersen, decided in his usual way that he wouldn't
take part, Mr Fraser went to water. All his lofty sentiments
about " constructive efforts" and " good government" were
forgotten. When the Queensland Premier decided to be
obstructive, when the other non-Labor Premiers followed suit,
Mr Fraser knuckled under to the Premiers and withdrew his own
delegation. / 2
2.
It would be difficult to imagine a more craven and
irresponsible attitude on the part of a national political
leader. Years of work had gone into the preparation for
this Convention. All the Premiers at the initial meeting
two years ago were full of confidence and hope that the
Convention would lead to practical reforms. Remember that
the Convention has never been predominantly, or even half,
a Labor Party affair. The initiative for it camne from
the Victorian Parliament. The Australian* Government has
never sought to dominate the proceedings and we would have
been quite silly to try. We were seeking no more than a
working consensus an agreed basis for constitutional reform.
The States would never have taken part in the first place
if they had not accepted that some reform of the Constitution
was necessary. For ' tunately the Opposition boycott didn't wreck
the Convention altogether. The Australian Government,
the Tasmanian and South Australian Parliaments and the
Territories were all represented. So too was local
governmenta,-and it's here that we find the real reason
for the hostility of the anti-Labor States. The Courts
and Bjelke-Petersens of this world bitterly oppose
the efforts of the Australian Government to make local
government a full and equal partner in the Federal system.
I remind you that when the Constitutional Convention was
first proposed, back in 1972, 1 said in my policy speech
on behalf of the Labor Party before we were even a
Government that the Australian Labor Government would
participate in the Convention only if local government was
represented. We made that a condition and we stuck * to it.
We took the view that any reform of the Constitution in which
the needs of local government were ignored would be a waste
of time. The Constitution as it stands doesn't even mention
local governx7. ent. Would anyone drawing up the Constitution
today make no mention of this vital area?
It's perfectly clear that the non-Labor States want
to keep local government in its present financial straightjacket.
As a national Government we've done our best to give a new
financial deal to local government, particularly through a
generous system of direct grants, made on the basis of
independent advice, which local councils can spend in any
way they wish. The States have done their best to
frustrate these policies and dominate local government at all
costs. They talk about centralism, but the real centralists
are the State Governments who want to keep local bodies as
their permanent, improverished vassals.
When you look at our programs you will see how much
they depend on localgovernxnent cooperation and initiative.
We recognise which the States do not that some things
can only be done properly at, the local level. For example,
our health centres and child care centres involve local
communities in p~ lanning and-running these essential services.
What we call the Australian Assistance Plan is a pioneering
experiment in this sort of community involvement. The idea
here is for local communities with my Government's financial
help to seek out and meet needs for which the usual social
welfare services make no provision. Our Area Improvement
3.
Program is intended to improve the quality of life in
nominated regions through projects determiined by-the people
of the region. We don't want to run these local schemes.
We want local councils and local groups to run them
as they wish.,
It's not just by boycotting the Constitutional
Convention that the non-Labor States are. attacking
these plans for local community activity. They have
challenged our legislation for them in the High Court.
On top of that, Mr Fraser has just served notice that the
Liberals, if ever they got back into power, would cut
back drastically tLhe grants made to the States for specific
purposes. If one thing is clear from the so-called policy
on federalism unveiled by the Opposition this week, it's
their desire for a full-scale onslaught on local initiative,
on local community projects, especially in the welfare
area. I can mention any number of projects that rely on
specific purpose grants from the Australian Government:
child care, pre-schools, projects for aged and homeless
and handicdapped and Aboriginal people, isolated children,
health centres, legal aid offices, nursing homes and home
nursing, meals on wheels, flying doctor and blood transfusion
services. All these programs are imperilled by the. Opposition
policies. In the past week Mr-Fraser has shown his utter
hypocrisy over the Constitutional Convention, his indifference
to the real needs of local government, and his readiness to
back down whenever the Premiers stand over him in defence
of their State-run centralist empires.