COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
S PEEC
i " O i
The Rt. Hon. HAROLD HOLT, P. M.,
S ON
REFERENDUM PROPOSALS
Ministerial Statement
From the " Parliamentary Debates," 23 February 1967]
Mr HAROLD HOLT ( Higgins-Prime
Minister)-by leave-Mr Speaker, Cabinet
has given further consideration, as I outlined
in answer to a question put to me by
the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam),
to the matter of holding a referendum on
the two items which were the subject of
legislation by both Houses of Parliament
towards the end of 1965. It has decided to
proceed in relation to both of these matters.
The major purpose'of the first proposal was
to remove the requirement in the Constitution
that any increase in the number of
members in the House of Representatives
would automatically produce an increase in
the number of senators to the extent of half
the increase in the number of members of
the House of Representatives. The second
proposal, in the form in which it was previously
passed, was designed to remove the
provision which prevents Aboriginal natives
from being counted when the population is
reckoned. This is one of two provisions in
the . Constitution in which Aboriginal or
people of the Aboriginal race are mentioned
explicitly. They are to be found in section
51 ( xxvi). and section 127. Section 51
provides: 2888/ 67 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution,
' have power to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the Commonwealth
with respect to:
( xxvi.) The people of any race, other than the
Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed
necessary, to make special laws:
The Government has decided to propose
that the words ' other than the Aboriginal
race' in any State' be omitted from the
section. While the original intention in
inserting these words was to safeguard the
position of people of the Aboriginal race
they have been widely misinterpreted and
there. is a general impression that they are
discriminatory. When amending proposals were previously
before the Parliament, that relating
to Aboriginals was adopted unanimously in
both Houses, and the proposal to break the
nexus between the House of Representatives
and the Senate was adopted unanimously in
the House of Representatives and by a very
substantial majority . in the Senate. Indeed
on the second reading of the Bill in that
chamber there were forty-four ayes against
seven noes. On the third reading there were
forty-three ayes to eight noes.
For reasons which I publicly indicated on
February 1966, and later repeated in
my first policy statement to the House of
Representatives on 8th March 1966, the
Government decided to defer until the commencement
of this Parliament the consideration
of the taking of a referendum in
relation to these matters. I said then:
we intend, early in the life of the next
Parliament, to introduce the necessary legislation
to enable a referendum to be held on the proposal
to break the nexus between the two Houses of
Parliament. We will also then give a general indication
of our intentions in relation to the distribution
proposals which would be made should the referendum
prove successful. We intend, at the same time,
to present also the proposal relating to Aborigines.
This proposal has been supported by all political
parties, and there was indeed no negative case
prepared for circulation to the eledtors.
I now give the general indication then
promised of our intention in relation to
redistribution proposals. Need for this is
long overdue as I am sure all honourable
members will agree. Some metropolitan
electorates, for example, in the same State,
have fewer than 40,000 yoters while others
have in excess of 100,000. By the time of
the next election,' assuming the Parliament
will run its full course, the disparity will
have widened. Should the referendum in
relation to abolition of the nexus between
the two Houses prove successful the Government
would propose to increase the size of
the House of Representatives so as to provide
one member for iot fewer than 85,000
persons. It is worth mentioning here, I
think, that if . a . pecific provision relating
to 85,000' persons" were made it would be
the first occasion when such a specification
had been included in the Commonwealth
Constitution. This, we anticipate, would
require an increase of about thirteen in the
size of the House of Representatives.
Unless the nexus is removed an increase
in the House' of Representatives must be
accompanied by an increase of as nearly as
practicable half that number in the Senate.
If the present voting system were to. be
maintained ' this could be performed effectively
only by increasing the Senate by
twenty-four, thus involving a total increase
in the House of Representatives'of fortyeight.
In other words, to secure what would be intended as a modest increase in the
House of Representatives we would be
driven-I repeat, assuming that we maintain
the present system of voting for the
Senate-to a total increase of seventy-two
parliamentarians. The purpose of the nexus
proposal is as I have mentioned. It has
been suggested -that our object is to permit
an excessive increase in the number of members
of Parliament. This was one of the
grounds of criticism which we heard at the
time of the earlier legislation. This, of
course, is not so. Our proposal is, I repeat,
to ask the electors for approval to change
the Constitution so that as the growth of the
population requires we can legislate in this
" arliament for modest increases in the size
of the popular House. It is true that the
present Constitution would permit small increases
in the size of this House, but they
would have to be accompanied by directly
proportionate increases in the size of the
Senate. Our proposals, if carried, are
designed to allow the smallest increase that
we consider to be consistent with effective
representation without the necessity to make
adjustments in the size of the Senate.
There is no question of eroding the
proper role of the Senate by the. proposal
to.. break . the nexus,. nor. indeed of precluding
future, increases in the size of the
Senate. . I think. that questions of this sort,
with the restraints removed, could safely be
left to the i good sense of representative
members of the Parliament in both Houses,
themselves responsive to the wish of. the
. electorate, as. they interpret it at the time.
Under the existing constitutional provisions,
it is not: possible to secure changes in the
numbers of the House of Representatives
without running into serious difficulties in
effecting the proportionate changes in the
size of the Senate. We believe that the Government
and the Parliament should have
flekilblity to secure such changes in the size
of this House as we deem desirable as our
population grows. However, we believe that
the Senate as at present constituted is well
able to discharge, and ' discharge effectively,
the role designed for it by, the Constitution.
We are well aware that some fears are held
that the prestige and authority of the
Senate may. in some manner be diminished
as a conseqdence ' of this proposal and that
its role as a house of review and custodian
of the rights of the smaller States weakened.
We do not accept these views as having
practical force. The Senate of the United
States provides an example of how a chamnber
much smaller in numbers than the
popular House may develop great authority
and prestige. In modern times, most senators-
in my experience this has invariably
been the practice of those from the Australian
Labor Party-have followed in the
Senate the policies adopted by the majority
in their party room discussions.
The Government, I may say, has considered
other suggestions that have been
brought forward to effect an increase in
-the size of the House of Representatives
and at the same time enable an increase
in the size of the Senate, but without
having the considerable jump in numbers
that would follow if we maintained the
present system of voting. We have looked
in particular at a proposal that the Senate
be increased by a total of six, with one
additional senator for each State. This
would mean that at alternate elections there
would be six senators voted for on one
occasion and five on the other. It might be
necessary to have six senators elected in
some States and five in others at the same
election. The possibility of a deadlocked
Senate would be considerably increased and
there are other factors which, in the view
of the Government, make this a less desirable
course than the more simple and clear
cut proposition to increase the House of
Representatives to the required extent without
the requirement of a corresponding increase
in the Senate.
We did consider whether other referendum
proposals should be added to the two
that had previously been considered by the
Parliament. However, except in the one
respect I have mentioned in relation to Aboriginals,
we have come to the conclusion
that we ought not to complicate the issues
to be put to the people by introducing additional
proposals but should confine OUrselves
to the two issues previously considered
by the Parliament. These, as I have
mentioned, were matters which received the
unanimous support of this House and, as
to one, unanimity in the Senate, and, as
to the other, the very large majority that
I have detailed. The Government feels that,
with an understanding of its intentions and
recognition of the necessity to provide adequate parliamentary representation for a
rapidly growing population, there will be
the necessary electoral support for the
desired constitutional change. There should
also be wide approval for the removal of
provisions generally deemed, even if mistakenly,
in some way to discriminate unfavourably
against Aboriginals and persons
of the Aboriginal race.
Our intention, Mr Speaker, is to put
through the necessary legislation relating to
these proposals as soon as practicable. I
expect it to be introduced in this House
within the next week or two. We propose to
have the measures passed by the two Houses
as expeditiously as possible. Whatever may
be the fate of the referendum we are
resolved that there shall be a redistribution
of electoral boundaries during the life of
this Parliament. Clearly it would be unsatisfactory
to continue indefinitely a situation
in which metropolitan electorates in particular
exhibit such wide disparity of numbers
of voters and in which there is great
need for a more balanced and more equitable
distribution of boundaries between the
electorates of the Commonwealth as a whole.
The expedition proposed for the passage of
the legislation and the submission of the
proposals to the people by way of referendum
is dictated in large part by our
knowledge that the carrying through of a
redistribution for all the electorates throughout
Australia will take considerable time. We
must have these initial procedures completed
well before the next general election, which
we hiope will occur in three years from
now. Wi Bryant-Mr Speaker, I -ask for leave
to make a statement.
Mr SPEAKER-Is leave granted?
Mr Harold Holt-I asked the Leader of
the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam) whether he
wished to make a statement. He considered
that as the legislation would be introduced
shortly that would not be necessary. If one
honourable member is given leave to make a
statement, doubtless others will want to join
in. There will be an early opportunity to
debate the matter when the relevant legislation
is before us soon.
Leave not granted.
BY AUTH-ORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA, A. C. T.