, S ,~ 4SoEMBARGO: 5 P. M. SUNDAY
QUEENSLAND BROADCAST NO. 11
REDISTRIBUTION I JUNE 1975
THIS WEEK WE HAVE SEEN A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THE
COUNTRY PARTY'S CONTEMPT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
AND THEIR ABILITY TO STAND OVER THEIR COALITION
PARTNERS, THE LIBERALS. Two WEEKS AGO, WE INTRODUCED
IN' THE NATIONAL PARLIAMENT PROPOSALS TO ALTER THE
BOUNDARIES OF FEDERAL ELECTORATES. THESE
REDISTRIBUTIONS ARE NECESSARY FROM TIME TO TIME
BECAUSE OF INEVITABLE CHANGiES IN THE PATTERN OF
' POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT. EXCEPT FOR SOME
CHANGES IN W! ESTERN AUSTRALIA, THERE HASN'T BEEN A
REDISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT SINCE
1968, THE LAST THREE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTIONS WERE ALL HELD ON BOUN~ DARIES DETERMINED
SEVEN YEARS AGO. YET GREAT POPULATION MOVEMENTS
HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THEN. ANOTHER REDISTRIBUTION
IS OVERDUE AND URGENT. IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO PUT
IT OFF ANY LONGER,
-2-
W'HEN WE FIRST BROUGHT THE REDISTRIBUTION
PPOPCSALS BEFORE PARLIAMENT TWO WEEKS AGO, THE
OPPOSITION IN THE SENIATE, UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE
COUNTRY PARTY, REJECTED THEM; THEY REJECTED THEM
IN EVERY ONE OF THE FIVE STATES CONCERNED. THEY
DIDN'fT ARGUE THEIR MERITS; THEY JUST BLINDLY
TURNED THEM DOWN. THEY EVEN REJECTED THEM IN THOSE
STATES SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND TASMANIA WHERE THE
COUNTRY PARTY HAS NO MEMBERS AT ALL IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.. THERE WAS NO POINT IN OUR GETTING
THE PROPOSALS REDRAWN, BECAUSE THE COUNTRY PARTY
HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WOULD OPPOSE ANY
REDISTRIBUTION AT ALL. THAT WAS THEIR ATTITUDE.
SO WE DECIDED TO BRING THE PROPOSALS FORWARD AGAIN
IN THE MORE SUBSTANTIAL FORM OF LEGISLATION IN
THIS WAY, SHOULD THE SENATE PERSIST IN ITS OBSTRUCTION.-
WE CAN ADD THESE PROPOSALS TO THE GROWING LIST OF
MEASURES WHICH THE SENATE HAS BLOCKED AND PUT THEM
BEFORE THE PEOPLE AT THE NEXT ELECTION. THE PEOPLE
THEMSELVES WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PASS JUDGMENT
ON THE NEW BOUNDARIES, WHATEVER THE SENATE MAY DO. 11/ 7
OF COURSE IT'S N-ATURAL. FOR POLITICANS-TO BE
WIARY OF CHANGES IN FLECTORAL EOUNDA-RIES THEY GO
TO0 THE IliART OF THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, BuT LET's
BE CLEAR ABOUT TIS: THIS IS NOTl OUR REDISTRBUTI ON,
TIHESE ' HT LABOR PARTY PROPOSAL. S. THEY Iv. IFRI
DRAW ! N UP BY INDEPENDENT AND EXPERT COMN1ISSION 1: 1) S WJHOSE
INTEGRITY AND EXPERIENCE ARE BEYOND QUESTION.
THE R: YSULTS ARE SCRUPULOUSLY FAIR AND NO ONE
HAS SUGGESTED OTHER'W'ISE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE
MY WORD FOR IT, FlR MALCOLM rIACKERRAS, AN ACKNOWLEDGED
ELECTORAL ANALYSTI SAID THIS OF THE COMMilISSIONER S
PROPOSALS: " IN OVERALL POLITICAL TERMS, THE 1975
REDIS'TiRIBUTION IS THE FAIREST sET OF PROPOSED
BOUND4ARIES EVER TO BE PRESENED TO ANY AUSTRALIN
PARLAINIEN1 IN MY LIFETIM. T* i-HE COMM ISSI ONERS IAVE
BEH1iT OVER BACKWARDS TO AVOID ANY SUGGESTION OF
GERRYMANDERING. THEY HAVE SET OIT TO DRAW
BOUDArI: ES SO PATENTLY FAIR THAT REJECTION BY T HE
SENATLE 10, OULD REFLECT DISCREDIT ON THE SENATEI N'OT
ON THE COM ISSIONERS." / 11
-ITrwvr's
WHAT ONE EXPERT HAD TO SAY, SO VIP
MAY WELL A,' 3K\ WHY THE OPPOSITION IS REJECTING THiE
NLEWV BOUNJDARI ES OUT OF HAND. IT I S NOT AS THOUGH r [ j
LJDj-: NAL PARTY IS LIKELY TO SUFFER UNDULY. IN sA
R[ rSPErCTS THEIR POSITION WILL ' BE STRENGTHENED AND THE
LAB-OR V'-APTY POSITION WILL BE W'EAI( LNED THAT WILL
CEIRTAINLY BE THE CASE IN QUEENSLAND. SO WHY THE FUSS,
WHY THE BLIND OBSTRUCTION? WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK
VERY FAR FOR THE ANSW'ER, THE COUNTl-lRY PARTY THE
N~ ATIOINAL COUNTRY PARTY AS THEY NOW CALL THEMSELVESWANT
TO PRE-SERVE THE-PRIVIL. EGEUD POSITION THEY HOLD
BEiCAUSET-OF HUGE VARIATIONS BETWN TE IE F IY N
RURAL SEATS, THEY WIANT TO KEEP THE SYSTEM RIGGED
IN THEIR FAVOUR.
I OUGHT TO ' EXPLAIN THAT U" NTIL LAST YEAR, THIE
LAW A'LLOWED TllE ELECTORAL COMMI 35S1O NERS, WHEN
DRW~ IGUP tlEtt r-0UNDA'RIES, TO WAESOME SEATS VERY
MUCH LA42" GFR THAN OTHERS, THE NEROF VOTrERS IN ANY
ONE SEAT COUL-D 2nU2A0B% OV E OR DELOW THE AVERAGE
NIJMPE) R OF VOTERS IN ALL THE SEATS OF THE STATE CONCERINED.
THAT TOLERANCE, TOGETHER WITH NATURAL MOVEMENTS OF
PO PU0LAT 10N1. HAS MEANT THAT IH NOST STATES THERFE ARE NOW
SfEATS V I TH UP To 70. NORE \' IL: RS THANITES
U E N SLA'IlD rHE LA" RGEST SEAT HAS NORE THAN TWvICE AS MANY
V'OTERS TAil THE SMALLEST. IN OTHER WORDS, SGOME PEOPLE'Is
VOT'ES'' AIRE WORTH MIORE THAN'-TWICE AS fMUCjH AS, OTHER PE-oP!. E'S,
SO W-' E BROUGHT IN LEGISLATION To REDUCE THE P ERM ITT ED
VAI" IATION FRoli 20Z TO THERE'LL STILL BE A
DI F2ER'NCE; AN" D IT WI LL GROW A POPULAT IONS CHAjNG; 7E
BUT A 10" M-1ARC IN WVOULD 13 E A MUCH FAIRER START ING P0 [ NT
11I1JCH CLOSER TO THE IALOF' LU-A! . TY,
OUR LEGISLATION FOR THAT 10% DIFFERENCE WAS FOUGHT
TOOTHi AND NAIL BY THE COUNTRY PARTY;
IT WAS ONE OF THE BILLS THAT FORMED THE BASIS OF
THE DOUBLE DISSOLUTION GRANTED LAST YEAR; IT WAS
SPECIFICALLY PUT BEFORE THE PEOPLE AT THE ELECTION
LAST MAY. THE PEOPI. E ENDORSED I-F THE PRINCIPLE
OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION, THE BILL WAS PASSED BY
THE PARLIAMENT AT ITS JOINT SITTING IN AUGUST,
THE NEW MARGIN OF 10o IS NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND.
BY REJECTING THE NEW REDISTRIBUTION, BASED ON THAT
LAW, THE COUNTRY PARTY IS REJECTING A PRINCIPLE
SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE.
PUT SIMPLY, WE BELIEVE IN THE SIMPLE, ANCIENT
RULE OF ONE VOTE ONE VALUE, OUR LEGISLATION, AND
THE REDISTRIBUTION BASED UPON IT, A REDISTRIBUTION
DRAWN UP BY INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONERS, BROUGHT US CLOSER
TO THAT IDEAL. THERE'S NO MYSTERY ABOUT IT, W. E THINK
EVERYONE'S VOTE SHOULD BE WORTH MORE OR LESS THE
SAME AS EVERY OTHER PERSON'S. ALL THE PHONY ARGUMENTS
IN THE WORLD CAN'T EVADE THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT EVERY
MAN S VOTE, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, SHOULD BE OF EQUAL VALUE-,
IN QUEENSLAND, UNDER THE EXISTING DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL
SEATS, THE SIZE OF ELECTORATES DOESN'T JUST FLAUNT THE
NEW LIMIT OF 10%; FOUR OF THE ELECTORATES ARE WELL
OVER THE OLD LIMIT OF 20%. THE ENROLMENT OF THE
LARGEST AND SMALLEST ELECTORATES VARIES BY 43,000 VOTERS.
IT IS THE LARGEST VARIATION OF ANY STATE IN AUSTRALIA,
TiIS IS A DENIAL OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF DEMOCRACY,
-6-
YOU CONSTANTLY HEAR THE ARGUMENT FROM COUN'TRY
PARTY POLITICIANS THAT COUNTRY SEATS MUST HAVE
FEWER VOTERS THAN CITY SEATS BECAUSE OF THE
DIFFICULTIES OF REPRESENTING SPRAWLING RURAL
ELECTORATES COVERING THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
THis IS A SPECIOUS ARGUMENT. WE ALREADY ALLOW
A DIFFERENCE OF 10%. EVEN IF WE ALLOWED A
DIFFERENCE OF 50% OR 100%, RURAL SEATS WOULD
STILL BE VAST IN AREA BY COMPARISON WITH CROWDED'
CITY SEATS, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE DISTRIBUTION
OF POPULATION, THIS IS NOT, AND CAN NEVER BE, AN
ARGUMENT FOR DENYING DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS TO THE
MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS, THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AFTER
THE NEEDS OF RURAL ELECTORATES 1S TO GIVE BETTER
FACILITIES TO MEMBERS REPRESENTING REMOTE AREAS,
TO 0! PROVE COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT IN THESE
AREAS. NE WON ' T DO IT BY RIGGING THE ELECTORAL
SYSTEM IN FAVOUR OF ONE PARTICULAR PARTY. , i A/
-7-
FOR YEARS IN QUEENSLAND YOU HAVE HAD
ABUiNDANT EVIDENCE OF THE RESULTS OF COUNTRY PARTY
GERRYMANDERING, FOR YEARS THEY REMAINED IN POWER
WITH 20% OF THE POPULAR VOTE, THE ELECTORAL LAWS
ARE RIGGED AS MUCH AGAINST THE LIBERAL PARTY
AS THEY ARE AGAINST LABOR. IN MARCH 1971 EIGHT
LIBERAL MEMBERS CROSSED THE FLOOR OF THE
QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENT TO VOTE WITH THE A, L. P.
AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST DISGRACEFUL GERRYMANDERS
EVER PROPOSED, THE COUNTRY PARTY ARE PAST MASTERS
OF THIS DIRTY GAME. THEY SEE THEIR FUTURE THREATENED,
THEIR SUPPORT WANING IN RURAL AREAS, AND THEY ARE
DESPERATE TO MAINTAIN IT. THEY BLOCKED A FEDERAL
REDISTRIBUTION IN 1962 FOR THE VERY SAME REASON.
THEYI' SIMPLY WON'T PLAY BY THE RULES, I HOLD PO BRIEF
WITH THE LIBERALS, BUT I SOMETIMES WISH THEY HAD THE
GUTS TO RESIST THE PRESSURE OF THEIR COALITION PARTNERS.
AT LEAST SIR CHARLES COURT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
HAS SEEN THE FOLLY OF KNUCKLING UNDER TO COUNTRY
PARTY BLACKMAIL. I'M AFRAID THAT IN THE NATIONAL
PARLIAMENT THE COUNTRY PARTY TAIL STILL WAGS THE
LIBERAL PARTY DOG. THE REJECTION OF THESE PROPOSALS
THIS OVERDUE AND EMINENTLY FAIR REDISTRIBUTION
WILL BENEFIT NO ONE BUT THE COUNTRY PARTY. IT WILL
BE AN UTTER REPUDIATION OF THE PEOPLE'S WILL EXPRESSED
AT THE LAST ELECTION, A SETBACK TO EVERY PRINCIPLE
OF DEMOCRACY AND TO AUSTRALIA'S REPUTATION AS A
DFMOCRATIC NATION. 3It 1?
I