PRIME MINISTER
piRc pRESS 11 MAY 1977
ADDPXESS AT CPiAMPAIGN DINNER, ADELAIDE
I want to speak to you tonight about the referendums which
Australians will be voting on in ten days time.
The success of the referendums will make a major contribution
to the constitutional development of our country. They are
fair, sensible and just proposals, to reform the constitution,
and I am sure that they will be successful.
Many referendums in the past have been lost, often for good reason,
because many of them have sought imore power for Canberra. But thesf
referendums are fundamentally different. They do not seek more
power for the Commonwealth. They do not seek -more power for
politicians. In no way do they weaken the states-
These referendums also meet two further requirements which, it
is cleart are essential prerequisites for constitutional chnange
in Australia.
rirst, there has been wide ranging prior consultation with all
states and parties. The proposals were carefully considered at
the Hobart Constitutional Convention last year, which was attended
by the Commonwealth, all the states, local government, and all the
major parties. The principles of all four referendums were adopted
overwhelmingly by the Convention.
Second, the changes are supported on a bi-partisan basis by all
the manjor federal parties. Each of the four proposals passed in
the House of Represefttatives without a single dissenting voice,
and all were passed by an overwhelming majority in the Senate.
Every single South Australian Member of the House of RepresentativeE
and every South Australian Senator, without exception, voted Yes on.
all four proposals.
I am glad to have the full support of the South Australian
Parliamentary Liberal Party, particularly David Tonkin and R~ oger
Goldsworthy. We see the need to -place before the people proposals
for constitutional reforms which meet all these requirements,
and to support the constitutional convention which was initiated
and this should be emphasised by the states.
The four changes on which we shall be voting on 21 May are these-
First, that elections for the Senate and House of Representatives
should be held simultaneously. It is just plain common sense that
federal elections always be held at the same time, and that the
only time you have to vote in a federal election is when you have
o
ill
1. AUR L 1, A LS
2
to choose Australia's Government. This proposal means we will not
have to vote in as many federal elections. It will also protect the
less populous states lik South Australia..
When there are separate elect'ions for the HRuse of Representatives,
political leaders are tempted to confine their campaign to New South
Wales and Victoria which have ovei 60% f the seats. But, if there
is, at the same time, an election'qfr-the Senate, in which all states
are equally represented, the c pignst be extended with vigour
to all six states.
Some have said that this referendum\ is unnecessary that simultaneous
elections can be acbieved,' by bringing the House of Representatives
election forward to coincide with that of the Senate. But that is
neither practical nor a, desirable, iethd of achieving simultaneous
elections. Under the present, rovibS of the constitution, the two
Houses are nearly always out -oCT-iae. The Senate's term is backdated
to the previous 1 July,-bui the term of Members of the House
of Representatives dates from the time of swearing in, usually some
weeks after the election. Unless the constitution is changed, the
only way to bring the elections together would be repeatedly to cut
short the term of the House of Representatives. The three year term
is, however, already relatively short one of the shortest Parliamentar
terms in the democratic world. Further reducing it would damage good
government. Aost ximportantly, this proposal will maintain and strengthE
the Senate and its capacity to protect the states. If this proposal is
not passed, the future of the Senate will ultimately be put in jeopardy.
It was quite by chance that in November 1975 when the liouse of
Representatives was dissolved, Bills existed which created the circumstances
permitting a double dissolution of both Houses. Had Liberal
Senators not been liable to face the people themselves, so that their
actions might be judged, a number of them would not have agreed to
block supply. I myself would never have sought the blocking of supply
from a Senate that would not itself have also faced the people of
Australia. The Senators attitude was Soundly based because if any
House of Parliament were to send another House to the polls while not
itself being judged by the people, it would not survive.
If double dissolution is not available, the only way to ensure that
the Senate does face the voters, in such a constitutional crisis, is
to have a normal half-Senate election. But under the constitution,
that can only be held every third year. So for two years out of every
three, the Senate cannot face the people to explain and justify its
actions, even if every Senator desired such an election. In short,
if you subscribe to the fundamental principle that the Senate should
not be able to force the Government to the polls unless the Senators
themselves face the voters at the same time, the constitution must be
changed to ensure this will always occur. You can do this by voting
Yes to simultaneous elections on 21 May.
Alternatively, if Senators were to make the House of Representatives
go to an election without facing the people themselves, then there
would be a public outcry ggainst the Senate which could lead to the
Senate's powers being restricted or abolished. Either of these
alternatives would be bad for democratic Government bad for the
states bad for Australia. That is why it is important that this
referendum be passed. A No vote on May 21 is a vote for the ultimate
destruction of the Senate and one of the world's best constitutions. / The second
3
The second referendum proposal is that,, whenever a Senator dies or
resigns, he will be replaced, for the remainder of his term of office,
by a member of the same party. This/ will guarantee that your choice of
parties for the Senate cannot be altered, by accident or design. Under
the constitution as it now stands, a Senate vacancy can completely chan
the party balance. It is fundamental to our democracy that only the
people should determine the balance of the parties in the Senate.
Once this proposal is accepted, the peoples choice will be preserved
until they have an opportunity tota . eanother choice at the next
* election.
7 The third referendum proposal 4s to glve, 4oters in the Australian
Capital Territory and Northern Territory' the basic right to vote in all
future referendums. This / is a-fundamiental right all other Australians
have. It is a right which use . to exist, but which was taken away-when
the two Territories were creatd, kknow of no rational or reasonable
argument for denying Terrtori_ vot4k \ this basic right. Territorial
voters have the same obligations > asiother Australians. They pay taxes,
they are obliged to observe the laws of the Commonwealth, they vote for
Members of Parliament, and the outcome of referendums affect them as
much as they do other Australians. Our democracy is the weaker until
this essential democratic right is restored to citizens in the Territor
The fourth and final referendum proposal is to set a retiring age for
federal justices. High Court justices would retire at 70 and the
retirement age for other Federal Court judges would be determined by
Parliament. The proposal does not affect the terms of judges already
appointed to the bench. Most jobs have retirement ages, and for good
reason. Judges are as affected by old age as the rest of us. It is
only fair that after the age of 70 responsibility should be handed over
to younger people. This is even more important now that the new system
of Federal Family Courts has been set up. The judges will of course
remain completely independent, just like state judges, all of whom are
subject to a compulsory retiring age.
All four referendum proposals are fair, just and reasonable. They
have been extensively considered. They have the support of all major
federal parties. They do not involve more power for Canberra. They
will make the constitution work better.
The polls show that all referendums have significant support in all
states. But those people who think the referendum propositions should
be passed cannot afford to be complacent. The referendums will not
pass themselves.
All people who care about constitutional and political reform in this
country have a responsibility to work for the referendums. If we all
do this, then the referendums will be passed, and we will have a
constitution which serves Australia's needs more effectively.