THE PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH AT THlE LAUNCHING OF
' THE AUSTRA\ LIAN CONSTITUTION' BY GEOFFREY SAWYER
ON MONDAY, 26TH MAY, 1975
I suppose I have been brought in to launch this book to
direct some attention to it and I'm very happy to fulfil
that purpose. I'm certain that anybody looking at the
book will find it interesting. It will be accessible to
a degree that very few books can be accessible because it
is being published by the Australian Government Publishing
Service and it will be available at all its outlets. It will
not only be accessible, it will be stimulating.
Geoffrey Sawyer is one of the most scintillating of our
academics. I w-. as first exposed to him getting on in the*
middle ' 50' s, when I was sitting on the Constitution Review
Committee of the Federal Parliament both Houses, both sides
of each House. There were very many distinguished witnesses
who gave their views and the one whose views I remember most
dazzlingly, was Geoffrey Sawyer.
There are a great number of academics these days who write
for the newspapers and particularly for the Fairfax press.
It's no compliment to say that Geoffrey Sawyer is the best.
Some of the others are fallible in proportion to -their dogmatism.
I've never known professors to be so unfailingly in error.
But Geoffrey Sawyer is better than most. He is certainly as good
as any. This is not patronising. One has to remember that
judges don't agree and their word is final. How many unanimous
decisions do you get from the High Court? In recent years we
have learnt how the Privy Council, of course, wasn't unanimous
always. A lot of things must have been decided by majority.
So if judges can disagree, there is no shame i~ n academics also
disagreeing and being wrong because the judge is only right if
he is in the majority. For all that, this book will be accessible,
it will be stimulating.
The important thing is that we should encourage people to
know the framework within which all the Australian Parliaments
have to operate. We are one of -the very few federal systems
in the world and we are the most litigious of them all. There
is West Germany, United States, Canada and Australia. There
are other federal systems, India, Mexico and Brazil and so on,
but one never really finds there the constitutional contests
in the courts such as you find in the three English speaking
federations and you don't find them in West Germany either.
I wish people would read the Constitution and see what it says.
I've had some people in the States just blowing their heads,
they are just beside themselves with outrage when anybody
suggests that perhaps we should take some responsibility for
seeing that there is a trafficable road between Sydney and
Melbourne. That's always been in the Constitution trade
and commerce between the States. True, at the time the thing
was written there weren't motor-cars and people, of course,
wouldn't go the whole of that distance in a horse and dray,
but there are roads now, and people do travel between Sydney
and Melbourne, but they can't do it on the road provided.
Nov, what is unreasonablie in using the trade and commerce
among the States it's perfectly feasible, right from the
beginning.
Again, I wish -they'd read what is said about hospitals. It
w,. as regarded as utterly outrageous, provocative arnd irresponsible
for me to suggest that if in large centres of population, such
as outer suburbs, which of course have larger popula-t-ions than
any country towns, any provincial centres except Newcastle,
-that if they haven't got hospitals provided by the States,
then the Australian Government could provide the hospital.
This was absolutely unheard of but since 1946 we have always
been able to provide medical services.
As it turned out, they disturbed themselves in the States
and they have now laid a few foundation stones. But I just
give you those practical examples. People do want to travel
between Sydney and Melbourne by road, people do want to have
hospitals near where they live, or are injured or are confined.
If the roads or the hospitals are not adequate, there's nothing
to say that the Federal Governizent shouldan't provide them.
One of the things which distresses me, of course, is how
negatively people regard these things. I don't mind the
limitations in the Federal Constitution on federal action
in terms o. f civil liberties or human rights, such as they
are there. I thnk it is monstrous that the provision providing
for jury trial has been by-passed by a shabby dodge but,
nevertheless, it meant well jury trial for serious crimes.
And again, acquisition of property on just terms. I don't cavil
at those at all, but nobody ever seems to think why shouldn't
the same things be applied to the States in the Constitution?
We had a Constitutional convention about 18 months ago, and
out of its deliberations people suggest that there should be
acquisition on just terms provided in the territories. Of
course there should be.. Nobody seemed to -think there should
be in the States too. What's the use of having a safeguard
like that which is applied only partially. It should be made
universal. Defective as the safeguard! of jury Lrial is under
federal criminal law, it should be tidied up but it should
also apply no less to State criminal laws. I wish people
would look at these things in a more basic way, in a less
conservative, restrictive and negative way.
Of course, the constitutional provisions are always taking on
new aspects. It's happened only a year ago. For -the first
time there was a double dissolution on several Bills. The
previous double dissolution had been on a single Bill. We
had them on six Bills. The currenit rate is over a dozen.
For the first time after a double dissolution, -the Bills
had to be rejected a third time so there was a joint sitting,
the first that ever had been. For the first timn, lasL May,
there were some referendums on another Provision of the
Constitution which said that if the Senate twice rejected
referendums, then Bills, then they could be put to the peop.* Ie
willy-nilly. The Senate can prevent a Bill being passed but
i~ t cannot prevent a referendum being put. Of course, the
Constitution is always taking new forms.
I want to pay tribute to the High Court and the way it has
developed it. It has done much more than the people ever
have at referendums. I was referring to the Constitution
Review Committee report in the late ' 501s. An am-tazing degree
of unanimity was reached there. There were never any of
our recommendations which were supported by fewer
than 11 of the 12 members. Most of them were unanimous. It's
only last year that it was found that there were objectionable
features about some of them. But in the meantime, some of the
provisions in our report have come about. We were much agitated
about the limitations of -the National Parliament's power over
civil aviation. Under the external affairs power, we now have
it, coupled with the import power. No, the Federal Parliament
doesn't need to amplify its civil aviation powers now it's got
them. Again, we were concerned about television which, naturally,
was not contemplated -in 1900 when the Constitution was drawn up.
Nobody worries that we haven't in the Federal Parliament, now
got jurisdiction over television. We were agitated about trade
practices. In the light of the concrete pipes case, the
corporation's power, we can effectivel~ y deal with trade practices.
So, one way or another, things develop.
I do urge that people should read the Constitution. A lot
of people think that if something is not used, that -there's
something improper about it. Take the Interstate Commission
an emminently reasonable body. But because it hadn't been
used for over half a century, people think that there must be
something improper about bringing it to pass. In the United
States, they would never think. of abandoning it. In West
Germany and Canada, they now have similar bodies. And so one
could go on. B~ ut I wish people would just be rational enough
to look at the Constitution; not just look at it in a restrictive
and negative, a cussed way, but to see what can be done if ii:
i. s necessary or desirable or preferable to do something. There
are very considerable shortcomings in it. A great amount can
be done by cooperation between the Federal and State bodies,
but at least one needs -to be clear where each of them stands
under the Constitution.
While I'm immensely flattered by what the Minister has said
about me, I suppose in many ways, all I can claim is that I
brought a lot of these m-atters to a head. I've made the
Parliameznt face up to them. I've made the State Parliaments
and Governments face up to them and I am trying to exercise
them internationally as well.
One of the most fascinating things about this book of
Geoffrey Sawyer's is that it makes the whole subject live
in human and political terms. I naturally regard political
terms as essentially human. That may have an elemet of
rationalisation about it. But, the Constitution was, in
terms of British colonies at the end of last century, a very
bold initiative. Most of the other Federal Constitutions in
the world have come about as a result of external pressures.
That was the case in America, in Canada and West Germany.
They have arisen from successful national liberation movements
or unsuccessful wars and the newly emancipated colonists have
resorted to federal systems or the banquished have resorted to
federal systems or had them imposed upon them. We did it,
largely, voluntarily. While I suppose you can say in retrospect,
the horizons were those of colonial politicians at the time, yet
nevertheless, there can be no doubt of the vigour of the debate
which took place. Of course the book is well illustrated. The
next edition ought to be still better illustrated, with some
of these fascinating cartoons here. It's one form of art or
controversy in which Australians have always been innovative
and excellent. But between us, the Australian Government
Publishing Service, Geoffrey Sawyer and the current Government,
I suppose constitutional matters will continue to be exciting
for quite some time. There can be no question that the public
is more interested in politics than it has been for 40 or
years. The 1920' s or 1.930 was the last time that there was
the interest in politics in Australia that there is at the
moment. If you are to understand Australian politics, you have to
have some acquaintance with the Australian Constitution.
With a scintillating author and a pretty good lawyer, we
now have the material readily accessible and I'm certain
people of all ages and all conditions, will be better and
wiser through reading ' The Australian Constitution' written
by Geoffrey Sawyer and published by the Australian Government
Publishing Service. I'm very happy now to launch it.