PRIME MINISTER
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH TO THE VICTORIAN
STATE PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY
THURSDAY -1 SEPTEMBER 1988
Members of the Press Gallery,
Ladies and gentlemen,
In about thirty six hours time it will be up to Australian
voters to play their part in the great process of
constitutional reform by bringing in their verdict on four
referendum questions.
I believe their verdict will be an historic one that they
will agree to amend the Constitution and to reform the rules
by which we govern ourselves.
I believe they will vote " yes" to all four questions because
they will recognise that all the referendum proposals are
ultimately about enhancing their own constitutional * tature
not the power of any Government, not the power of
Canberra, not the power of any political party, not the
power of politicians.
They are people's reforms and I believe they will be
recognised and acceded to as such.
Constitutional change is not to be proposed or agreed to
lightly. But there are times when such changes have to be proposed'
and should be made.
Such a time is now.
It was to allow change and to open the way to progressive
modernisation of the Constitution that our founding fathers
provided a means by which change could be carried out.
In creating the referendum provisions in the Constitution,
our founding fathers were expressing their faith in the
intelligence and good sense of the Australian people a
faith that in the years to come the people would be able to
consider proposals for constitutional reform and make an
informed judgement, just~ as they had done when they approved
the Constitution in the first place.
16( 338
It was a faith that the-people of Australia would not
approve of change for the sake of change but equally would
not stand in the way of change where it is necessary and
desirable. I share that faith.
But the campaign that has been conducted over recent weeks
by the Opposition Parties shows that they unfortunately
ERY ~ but perh aps typically do not share that faith.
Their ' no, case has treated the Australian people like
children to be scared by horror stories.
It has been a campaign reminiscent of that Patrick Cook
cartoon on referendums, showing a big billboard, in
Queensland of all places, on which was written ' Vote No or
giant snakes will eat your children.'
At the end of the campaign, looking back at the ' no' case,
all we see is a fog of conspiracy theories and wild
allegations. The only arguments we have heard from the Opposition have
been either inconsistent -in that they contradict positions
the Opposition has adopted in the past or hysterical in
that they deliberately distort the real implications of
? y these referendum proposals.
Les Their arguments have boiled down to the oldest trick in the
conservatives' book -the argument of pure reaction, that no
ise change is better than any change, regardless of the merits
of the proposed reforms and regardless of the credentials of
those who propose them.
It's difficult in politics to meet argument with argument,
to debate the real issues too difficult for the
Opposition, it seems. They have found it more convenient,
less intellectually taxing, to fall back on the
unsubstantiated allegation, the fearmongering claim, the
easy assertio ' n that any simple proposal must conceal a
hidden agenda . and that any suggestion for change must amount
to a grab for power by the wild-eyed Canberra socialists.
The nadir of the ' no' case is their ridiculous complaint
about the layout and typeface of the booklet sent by the
Australian Electoral Commission to every voter. They claim
the small sized print of the ' no' case compared with the
' yes' case reflects bias deliberately ignoring the fact
that both the ' yes' and ' no' cases were submitted to the
B Electoral Commissioner in camera-ready form by each side.
In other words, theychose the typeface they now complain
of. Most of the conspiracies and allegations made by the
opposition are forgettable sideshows like that. 1639
But one of them goes to a much deeper and more serious
matter: their attempt to revive the State aid issue.
The issue of State aid to church schools is one of the most
divisive and bitter issues of recent Australian history.
One of the proudest achievements of my Government is that we
have buried that issue for all time.
The last thing that anyone in my Government would wish is
for this issue to blight our community again.
It was for that reason we took the greatest care to ensure
that the proposed new provision would not in any way affect
the existing capacity for church schools to receive state
aid. Our intention that state aid not be affected was made
absolutely clear in the explanatory material for the
Parliament. If it ever came to a High Court challenge and
if-there were-any doubt about the intention of the
referendum, that explanatory memorandum could be taken into
account by the High Court.
I cannot, and nor can any Minister or Member of Parliament,
state categorically what a future High Court may or may not
decide in any case. That would be impossible and improper.
But we can look at the pro-State-aid trend of decisions by
the Court over the years and we can look at the proposed
wording of the referendum and we can look at the clear cut
legal opinions the most recent of which was provided by
Sir Maurice Byers, QC, a former Commonwealth
Solicitor-General and we can conclude from all this that
State aid will not be affected.
And we can conclude further that the Opposition's
suggestions to the contrary are nothing more than a shameful
exercise in scare tactics.
The purpose of the proposed freedom of religion amendment is
to extend the right of'Australians to follow their own
religious beliefs subject to the laws which govern us all.
This question, the fourth on the ballot paper, does no more
than ask voters to ensure the rights of:
trial by jury for people facing serious criminal
charges; fair compensation for property taken by any government;
and freedom of religion.
1i; 4 0 c rrI
The Constitution does not give a right to trial by jury for
offences against State or Territory laws or for a number of
serious Commonwealth offences; and it gives no right to
fair compensation when property is taken by a State,
Territory or local government, or by the Commonwealth in a
Territory. There is only limited constitutional protection
of the right to religious freedom against the Commonwealth
and none against the States or Territories.
This referendum will rectify each of these shortcomingsnothing
more and nothing less.
Let me briefly look at the other thr ee proposals.
The first seeks a four year maximum term for both the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
It is a change which will dramatically reduce the number of
elections. The benefits of such a change are clear.
Since 1945, a federal election has been held on average once
every two years.
This is universally recognised as too costly, not only
because of the $ 50 million that is now spent to hold each
election, but also because of the increased economic
instability and the restraint on good government imposed by
the ever-present prospect of an election.
Moreover, of the five elections since 1975, only 2 have been
held more than 12 months early and both were held elarly
specifically because half Senate elections fell due.
Passage of the 4 year term proposal would immediately do
away with half-Senate elections and the need for such early
elections. Elected governments deserve a fair go and enough time to
implement their policies.
Business deserves a fair go so that it can plan ahead with
confidence that Government policy will not change every two
years. And, most of all, the Australian people should give
themselves a fair go by giving the governments they elect
the ability to get on with governing.
Don't listen to the nonsense from the Opposition about the
powers of the Senate. This referendum will in no way reduce
the powers or independence of the Senate: it will remain
the States' house, the house of review, the watchdog of the
Parliamentary system. The Senate will still be able to
force a Government to elections but it will be accountable
to the people for its performance at the same time. 1641
Make no mistake the Opposition sees merit in four year
terms for the House. But to achieve the reform that we all
agree is desirable, they imposed an unacceptable price
eight year terms for Senators. How they reconcile eight
year terms with the principle of democratic accountability
of elected representatives has never been made clear
because of course they are irreconcilable concepts.
All the first referendum does is to offer to the Australian
people better quality government and more stable government
whatever the political persuasion of that government.
Side-by side with the proposal for fewer elections is the
second proposal, a referendum to provide for fair and
democratic elections throughout Australia.
And, like the first proposal, the end result will be better
government because a fairly elected government better
represents the will of the voters.
This proposal seeks, quite simply, to ensure that every
adult citizen's vote has the same value as any other
person's vote and that every Australian has a constitutional
guarantee of the right to vote.
At this point in the late twentieth century, as we celebrate
our Bicentenary, it ought to be taken for granted that a
democracy should be based on equal representation of its
citizens. Indeed, this is the case everywhere in Australia except in
Queensland, Western Australia and the Tasmanian Legislative
Council. The Opposition makes the claim that such matters should be
up to the States themselves to rectify if they wish.
I am a great believer in mankind's potential for
self-improvement but I am not so naive as to imagine that
chambers elected on, and entrenched by, undemocratic
boundaries will so easily see the error of their ways.
Indeed, Western Australians have encountered precisely that
problem in their attempts to reform the outrageously unfair
boundaries of the Legislative Council.
The proposed amendment to ensure fair and democratic
elections will bring that insult to Australian democracy to
an end.
It will ensure that the number of voters of each electorate
is within 10 per cent of the average electorate enrolment.
Redistributions will occur frequently enough to make sure
that the basic unit of Parliament, the electorate, remains a
fair basis for democratic government.
1642
The third proposal asks the Australian people to agree to
constitutional recognition of local government as an
integral part of the Australian system of government.
If this question succeeds, it will insert a new section into
the Constitution which will guarantee a system of elected
local government in every State.
This is a proposal which comes from local government itself,
and has the support of Australians from across the political
spectrum who believe, quite rightly, that the ability of
local government to serve the people who elect it will be
enhanced by constitutional recognition.
There can be no more complete response to the Opposition
critics of this proposal than to point to the fact that an
overwhelming majority of local councils have expressed their
support for it. The Australian Local Government Association
could find no more than 23 local councils out of the 836 in
Australia today where individual councillors have opposed
this amendment.
Even John Howard supported it. He recently wrote to the
Attorney-General expressing his support for constitutional
recognition of local government. And he has never bothered
to explain the reasons for this somersault.
Members of the Press Gallery, Ladies and Gentlemen
I can recall no set of referendum proposals ever put before
the Australian people which are more deserving of the
Australian people's support.
I do not think there has ever been a more extensive
opportunity for public involvement and awareness in the
process of Constitutional reform than in the process leading
up to these referendums.
I refer not only to the 92 days between the time Parliament
passed these proposals and referendum day
this has been the longest period for public
discussion between passage and polling for
referendum proposals in at least the last 30 years.
Nor do I refer only to the more than 43 hours of
Parliamentary sitting time devoted to the consideration of
these proposals which does not count the Matters of Public
Importance debated on the Opposition's initiative in
Parliament this week.
I go further back to 1985 when the Constitutional
Commission, a bipartisan community-based group, began its
immense task of studying what could be done to achieve
essential Constitutional reform. 16 43
The work of this Commission, chaired by Sir Maurice Byers,
has been absolutely first class in the number of public
hearings it has held and the number of submissions it has
received, in the quality of its committee work and above all
in the quality of its reports.
It is from the work of the Commission that the four
proposals on which Australians will pass judgment on
Saturday were drawn.
Even people whom one would normally not expect to support my
Government have stood up in favour of these proposals.
The Queensland Liberal leader, Angus mines, and the former
Liberal Premier of this State of Victoria, Sir Rupert Hamer,
have argued strongly for the fair elections proposal.
Local governments throughout Australia, whatever their
political colour people such as Sally Anne Atkinson, the
Lord mayor of Brisbane have been virtually unanimous in
backing the need for local government to be recognised in
the Constitution.
In the face of such broad-based support for these proposals
the increasing stridency with which the opposition has
presented its claims is understandable only as the response
of desperate people.
I have had reason to recall in an earlier speech the words
of Robert Menzies in 1944, during the Curtin years. In a
speech in Canberra in that year he had this to say of the
contribution the conservative Opposition had been making:
on far too many questions we have found our role to
be simply that of the man who says There is
no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is
no useful place for a policy of negation."
That was Robert Menzies in 1944. But there must be a large
number of Liberals who agree with those sentiments today,
and who are appalled to see their party's current position
on these referendums.
Because now the Liberals have turned the full circle; here
they are again, more than four decades later, as the party
of reaction, confronting new challenges with the oldest word
in their dictionary: " no".
It seems to me that the Opposition's arguments, and the
vehement way they have been presented, have been as much to
convince itself of a position it does not really believe in
as it has been to convince the Australian people.
They have failed to convince themselves. As recently as
last weekend Liberal M4P Steele Hall announced that he would
be voting in favour of the fair elections proposal and this
week former Liberal Minister Ian Wilson has written to his
electors urging a yes vote on the local government and the
rights and freedom questions.
ikA4
And they will not convince the Australian people.
In these last couple of, days, as Australians study the
arguments for and against the proposals, I have no doubt
that they will recognise that there is nothing hidden and
nothing to fear from the passage of these referendums.
I have no doubt, moreover, that they will reject the voices
of reaction which seek to retain the unjust privileges and
powers of politicians without responsibility, and which seek
to shackle the Constitution to the past.
On Saturday, I am confident that the Australian people,
having judged these proposals on their merits, will express
their approval of them. 0
1645