Senate
8 March 1967

26^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- VIP AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- LODER COMMITTEE REPORT
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
QUESTION
- DISALLOWED QUESTION
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, RIVERINA
QUESTION
- DECIMAL CURRENCY
QUESTION
- CANBERRA AIRPORT
QUESTION
- TELEVISION
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY QUOTAS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE CHARGES
QUESTION
- GRASSES
QUESTION
- PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- VIP AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- EMERGENCY SERVICES
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION
HOUSE COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967
- Second Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ABORIGINALS) BILL 1967
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- CALL OF THE SENATE
ADJOURNMENT
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ABORIGINALS) BILL 1967
- Third Reading

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Mou. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 317

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– ] ask the Minister representing the Minister for Air a simple straightforward question requiring merely a simple straightforward answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator DITTMER:

page 321

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 22)

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation upon notice:

As part of Australia’s efficient air safely procedures, is there any system in operation to keep nil Australian civil aviation authorities informed as to the approximate whereabouts of any delinquent space vehicles launched by other countries and which may decide to seek asylum in Australia’.’

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I believe that information of the nature referred to by the honourable senator would first come to the notice of appropriate officers of the Department of Supply, and the release of the information is therefore a matter for my colleage the Minister for Supply as distinct from my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation. In the event of such information being received in the Department of Civil Aviation, however, 1 am assured that it would be disseminated to all aviation authorities concerned in accordance with established practice, if it were considered to be of significance to the safe conduct of aviation in Australia.

page 321

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– Pursuant to Section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1966 I present the following paper:

Tenth Annual Report of the President of tha Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1966.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 321

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Henty) - by leave - agreed to:

That a House Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and Senators Cotton, O Byrne, Ormonde, Toohey, Webster and Wedgwood, with power to act during recess, and to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives.

page 321

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in the following terms:

That a Joint Committee be appointed to -

examine and report on all proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Gazette’ on the nineteenth day of November, 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the Committee by the Minister for the Interior; and

examine and report on such other matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to the Committee by the Minister for the Interior.

That the Committee consist of two members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Prime Minister, two members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, three senators appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and two senators appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in tha Senate.

That every appointment of a member of. the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the Committee shall hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of lime.

That the Committee elect as Chairman of the Committee one of the members appointed by the ‘Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of ils members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the Committee is empowered to examine.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to sit during any recess or adjournment of the Parliament and during the sittings of either House of the Parliament.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that, any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That five members of the Committee, including the Chairman or Deputy Chairman, constitute a quorum of the Committee, and two members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of the sub-committee.

That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Motion (by Senator Henty) - by leave - agreed to:

That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 6 of the House of Representatives with reference to the appointment of a joint committee to examine and report on certain matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory.

That the provisions of that resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 322

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 March (vide page 314), on motion by Senator Henty:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MATTNER (South Australia) which I made last night, when I spoke for a few minutes on the proposed alteration of our Constitution. I made the point that for over sixty years our Constitution has worked well and as far as is known there is no great desire on the part of the public of Australia to alter it in accordance with this Bill. This measure, if it becomes an Act, will alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the number of senators, lt goes a little further to provide that the Constitution to be is altered by omitting from the third paragraph of section 7 the words six senators’ twice occurring and inserting in their stead the words ‘ten senators’. We have been told that that proposed insertion of those words is a concession to the Senate. Then the Bill goes further and sets out to omit sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution and to insert a new section in their place. This is rather an interesting exercise. 1 think this Bill is easily the most important legislation that will come before the Senate during the current sessional period. I believe that the sponsors of this Bill should give to this House the reasons why the changes are sought because every honourable senator must admit that if the referendum is carried it will have far reaching effects and will affect the people of Australia in many ways.

Why are the sponsors of this Bill asking that section 24 of the Constitution be deleted? They say that they want to break the nexus, or the link, between the two Houses. I accept that as the primary objective of the Bill. That objective is contained in the very first words of the Bill, which state: so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the number of senators.

I looked through the speech of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) in a search for information as to the need for the change. It is said that members of the House of Representatives are overworked. I challenged that proposition last night. I again challenge anybody in this House or the other House to prove that he is overworked.

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I am sorry I cannot explain it to the honourable senator because he would not understand. 1 am reminded of a story of the depression when a man who was out of work went to a circus for a job. He was told: ‘Yes, you can have a job. Get into the lion’s cage, look him straight in the eyes and make out that you are not afraid.’ The man said: ‘No, I couldn’t take the job. I couldn’t be so deceitful.’ 1 wonder how many members of the House of Representatives or any other Parliament will look into the eyes of their constituents and tell them that they are overworked. I do not think many of them could be so deceitful. If the Australian people are told that members of Parliament are overworked, they will have the right to say yea or nay to that proposition. I believe that they will say nay. Facts and figures as to the number of members of Parliaments in Australia are available. I think it is safe to say that we have ample numbers to do the work required.

I ‘want to refer to one or two other matters that have arisen in this debate. Senator Henty in his second reading speech when appealing for the deletion of section 24 of the Constitution - and this is the very keystone of the Bill - said: it is not open to the Parliament to increase the size of the House of Representatives by a very small number without at the same time increasing the number of senators.

That is true. At present the Government wishes to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives by about twelve, to a total of about 135. That is the reason why it wants to break the nexus. But if the Government wanted to increase the number of senators for each State by one, the present nexus would allow 132 members in the House of Representatives. The Constitution allows this to be done. In short, the number could be increased constitutionally and the number obtained would be the number the Government wants in the House of Representatives.

We have heard the argument that the Senate could not have eleven senators for each State because this would produce further deadlocks. But the more arithmetic one does on that proposition the more one finds that it would in fact be less likely to create a deadlock, particularly if in three States six senators, and in the remaining three States five senators, were elected at each election. With a total of thirty-three vacancies to be filled at each election I do not know how a deadlock could arise. I have not yet heard in the debate any sponsor or supporter of the Bill provide any proof of the statement that more deadlocks would be created. Let those honourable senators refute my claim. How anyone could get a deadlock out of thirtythree votes is beyond me. I say it cannot be done. If any senator can prove me wrong let him do so.

– Does the Minister deny that New South Wales would lose one seat? That is the position. I repeat, pressure did come from New South Wales. New South Wales would lose one member out of forty-six if there were a redistribution. That State would lose 1 /46th of its representation in the House of Representatives.

That is one of the reasons why there has been this strong pressure that the nexus should be broken. If the babes in the woods on the other side of the chamber who support this Bill will cease interjecting and allow me to finish they will then be able to have their say. This must bc hurting somebody. Contrast what is happening in New South Wales to what happened in South Australia in 1934. South Australia had seven members in 1934 but we lost one. The figure was reduced to six. We lost l/7th of our representation. There was not one word of sympathy from New South Wales at that time yet today, because New South Wales may lose l /46th of its representation, we have this Bill thrust upon us. I think this is fair comment to make. To maintain that one member for New South Wales - and honourable members and honourable senators would not deny this - we are to have a referendum which will cost at least £1,400,000. In addition we are going to have from twelve to fourteen new members, estimated to cost $300,000 annually. If the usual pattern is followed in the House of Representatives, which has twenty-six Ministers - that is a ratio of eleven members to two Ministers - we will have two new Ministers at an added cost. It may be just coincidental or one of those things that happen in life that in 1948 the membership of the Senate and the House of Representatives was increased in a constitutional way - 1 have heard a lot said about this - and the Government that brought in that change in a constitutional manner was defeated the next year. Maybe that was just coincidental. 1 want to go a little further on this question. I would like the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) to give me this information. There is one thing that is worrying, not only me, but the public in general. It was stated in the second reading speech not only in the Senate but also in another place that this will be the first time that the Government has limited the number of people in an electorate to a definite number. Tn this case the number will be 85,000. Many people have asked me: ‘Why is it to be so limited? We cannot have less than 85,000 people in an electorate.’ That impression is in people’s minds and it has never been corrected. People say: Under this Bill the Government has limited the number of people in an electorate to 85,000; it cannot be less.’ I ask the Minister whether that is what is meant. Is it correct that the number of people in an electorate cannot be less than 85,000.

Senator Anderson:

– Yes, people as distinct from electors.

Senator MATTNER:

– That means that in each electorate there cannot be fewer than 85,000; it cannot be less. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his reply.

Senator Anderson:

– Not in each electorate.

Senator Branson:

– That is the divisor figure.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. It is the number that is decided by Parliament. It is to be not less than 85,000.

Senator MATTNER:

– All right. But it is possible to have a greater number.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I suggest that Senator Mattner address his remarks to the Chair.

Senator MATTNER:

– I shall do that with the greatest of pleasure, Mr Deputy President, because I delight in having an intelligent listener. I want some information about the quota of 85,000. I do not think that anybody sponsoring this Bill would want other people to react as I did when I read the Minister’s second reading speech and the comments in the Press and when I heard the Government say: ‘We are going to break this awful nexus. We are going to substitute a quota of 85,000 persons. This arrangement will limit the number of members in the House of Representatives.’ The Government failed to add the words ‘at the present time’.

I recall being in Westminster Hall and hearing a very great man speak to the assembled members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The Queen was present. This man, Sir Winston Churchill, delivered one of the most subtle speeches that I have ever heard. He turned to the Queen and said, as only Sir Winston could: Ma’am, I did not become your First Minister to disperse your Empire’. They are his words as near as I can remember them. It is true that he did not become her First

Minister in order to do that. But he failed to adel the words: ‘However at the present moment I am busy doing it’. At that time we were getting out of Egypt. I had just passed through Egypt, having had very happy memories of my visit there in 1915. We were also getting out of Aden. A similar thing is happening here now. This is a three card trick, as it were. The Government is saying: ‘We are limiting the size of the House of Representatives. This is the first time it has ever been done.’ Let us pause there for a moment.

I propose to quote some figures taken from the publication ‘Australia’s Population Structure and Growth’, which was written by the Professor of Demography at the Australian National University and his research assistant, Miss Geraldine Spencer, and which was published by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. The Government wants to have only twelve, or perhaps fourteen, more members in the House of Representatives for Australia’s present population. It wants to fix the quota al 85.000. But if Australia continues to grow - it certainly will - by 1971, which is only four years hence, we will have 156 members in the House of Representatives. Yet the Government says that it is seeking to limit the size of that House. By 1981. which is only fourteen years away - I will not see it - the number of members in the House of Representatives will have risen to 195. Possibly we will still have only sixty senators in this place. By the year 2000 the size of the House of Representatives will be 290. These figures are worth reflecting upon. To say that the Government’s proposals will limit the size of the House of Representatives is not strictly correct. 1 repeal that the Government should have added the words ‘at the present time’. I was very interested in Senator Murphy’s speech. But I was particularly interested in the speech delivered by Senator Cormack. Apart from his introductory remarks, Senator Cormack, by his eloquence, convinced me that I was quite correct in believing that the powers of the Senate will be whittled away. He came in so wonderfully that, if I ever had any misgivings about the importance of the Senate being diminished, they were fortified by what he said last night. That is why I am adamant on this question of great principle - the breaking of the nexus as proposed in this Bill. The proportion at present is one to two. I have said before that the Parliament may modify that if it wishes.

If we accept the proposal to have 85,000 people in an electorate in the future and to have no increase in the number of senators, there will be enormously increased representation in the House of Representatives. That will produce an impotent Senate. An increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives will greatly increase our difficulties. In my opinion, if we believe in Federation we must ensure that the relative strengths of the two Houses are maintained, lest the disparity in numbers injure one of the Houses. In my opinion, this Bill is designed to achieve the latter purpose. We hear that the number of members of the United States Senate has not increased. That is true. But its powers have not decreased. 1 contend that the Senate should never be placed in an invidious position. The electorate possesses common sense, and it is common sense that if the Senate is reduced to the smallest factor of the House of Representatives that will lead to the abolition of the Senate. In my opinion, the Senate is an essential part of our constitutional structure.

I want the Minister to answer one or two questions, particularly about the figure of 85,000. I want to know whether our electoral laws will be altered. If they are altered, I will not be worried. All I say is that this idea of 85,000 people in an electorate is an erroneous idea or a mirage. The number may be more; it may be less.

Senator Branson:

– That is very misleading to the Senate. The Bill does not say that there shall be 85,000 people in an electorate. That is a divisor figure that will be used to determine how many seats there shall be in each. State.

Senator MATTNER:

– I beg to differ. I refer to the Minister’s own words. This is a modification of our existing electoral law, including the Representation Act that we passed about two years ago. I want the public to be sure on that point. I have read the Bill and the second reading speech of the Minister, and I believe what I have said is absolutely correct. Mr President, I will not support this.Bill.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I shall support the Bill primarily because I believe the process envisaged in it is democratic and will give the people of Australia an opportunity to indicate whether they want the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate broken. The nexus means the relationship between the number of members in the House of Representatives and the number of senators. This nexus was laid down in the Constitution which was formulated nearly seventy years ago. The discussions on the Constitution took place between seventy and eighty years ago in an atmosphere entirely different from that of the present. Australia then was an entirely different country. Its financial responsibilities and aims were entirely different from those of today. At that time it was thought that a lower house of seventy-five members and a Senate of thirty-six members would be adequate. 1 have taken a little trouble to ascertain some of the salient features of the first few years of Federation as disclosed in the Budgets of those days. In 1901-02, the first year of Federation, consolidated revenue for the whole of the Commonwealth totalled £ 11.2m and the main sources of revenue were customs duties, £9.5m and postal services £3. Im. Expenditure totalled £3.9m of which £2.9m was spent, on postal services and £lm on defence. Revenue in 1901 was 53s per head and expenditure was £1 per head of the population. In 1906 revenue had risen to 62s per head and expenditure was 24s per head.

When the Constitution was formulated, this was the level of revenue and expenditure visualised by the founding fathers of Federation. In my opinion they were pretty generous when they decided that seventy-five members of the House of Representatives and thirty-six senators would be required to deal with the business of the Commonwealth in those days. 1 admit that the business of the Commonwealth related to matters other than those reflected in revenue and expenditure but the relative figures indicate the smallness of Commonwealth Government operations at the time.

The number of members of Parliament remained at seventy-five in the House of

Representatives and thirty-six in the Senate until about eighteen years ago. That period saw Australia through two world wars - in the Second World War nearly one million men and women were in the armed forces. The period also saw Australia introduce income tax and death duties. It saw the development of civil aviation and the formation of a department to administer it. It saw the introduction of radio, social services and Australia’s diplomatic service. In the years following the Second World War the whole concept of mass immigration was revised by the Parliament when it comprised seventy-five members in the lower House and thirty-six senators.

By 1949 the puny figures that were apposite at the beginning of Federation had risen considerably. By that year, consolidated revenue had risen from £llm to $l,100m. Revenue had risen from £1 a head to $142 a head. Expenditure on defence had risen from £lm to $112m. Clearly there had been an enormous growth in the responsibilities and functions of the Commonwealth Government. The Parliament of 1948 acted properly in increasing the number of members of Parliament from 75 to 122 in the House of Representatives and from 36 to 60 in the Senate. The nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives was virtually maintained and this was done by legislation. It was not necessary to alter the Constitution. To increase the number of members and senators was proper because of the enormous increase in the functions and responsibilities of the Parliament.

We are now faced with a proposal by the Government that the nexus between the two Houses be broken; that the people of Australia be asked to permit the Parliament to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives without increasing the number of senators. We have heard some interesting speeches on the Bill particularly yesterday when Senators Cormack, Gair and Wright went into the historical background of the Australian Constitution and quoted from the speeches of the founding fathers. The statements that were made by those gentlemen in the closing decade of the last century were quite interesting but we must remember that they were made in the context of conditions of the time when the revenue of Australia was about £1 Im compared with $5, 397m today.

Statements that were made in those days have no practical meaning today. The founding fathers thought it necessary and desirable to maintain the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate so that one could not ‘be increased without a comparable increase in the other, but what they said then does not apply now. There has been a vast increase in the work of members of the House of Representatives. They represent a greatly increased population. They sit in a House of the Parliament where the Executive Government is mainly centred and are primarily responsible for the. interrogation of Ministers on revenue and expenditure. Consequently, if the number of members of Parliament is not adequate to perform the functions required of them on behalf of their electors, it is reasonable to ask that the number of members of the House of Representatives be increased.

I therefore think that the people would be wise to support this referendum. But primarily this Bill is to give the people the right to have a say in the matter, and 1 am right behind the purpose of it. I do not think that it will erode the vole of the Senate in any way if there are in the House of Representatives more than double the number of senators. There is only the one possibility - and that is a most remote possibility - of there ever being a joint: silting of members of the House and members of the Senate. That is after the whole process of double dissolution, a further election, and a breakdown between the two Houses after the further election. I do not think that that can be seriously canvassed in this debate. Therefore, I cannot see how this suggested increase will erode the vote of the Senate. The Minister said that if at any time it is desirable to increase the size of the Senate, this measure that will be put to the people will not preclude a future increase in (he Si 7C of the Senate.

Senator Webster:

– How would that increase come about?

Senator LAUGHT:

– If it became important it would have to come about by a referendum. What I am saying is that the proposed referendum does not preclude the possibility of that in the future, lt might not go quite back to the relationship of one to two. I support the measure and I endorse the thoughts behind the Government’s plan. I cannot see anything sinister in it when one considers the further functions that are coming the way of members of Parliament. Since the last increase in numbers we have seen the development of the Snowy scheme and television. At the present lime the defence vote is $1,00Om There is tremendous trade development. Australia is entering world markets for its manufactured goods. Great mineral development is going on all over the continent. Pensions are being paid to an ever widening number of people. Territory development is going on apace. Migration has so increased that possibly one in four of the people in Australia at present has come from overseas or is the child of persons who have come from overseas since the last war. These increasing functions and the increasing number of people who have come to this country have caused members of Parliament to have greater work to do.

I was rather disappointed that my friend and colleague from South Australia had such a poor opinion of the work that was being done by members of the House of Representatives. I would like to say concerning my colleagues from South Australia in the House of Representatives that I think they do a most adequate job of representation. Apparently, when Senator Mattner was engaged by one of them who was on an overseas trip to keep an eye on his office Senator Mattner was somewhat concerned that so little work was going through the office. I should like to remind him that obviously this member had responsibilities in the wider part of his electorate that would not necessarily come to Senator Mattner’s notice in the office. Consequently, I think that, if members of the House of Representatives are doing their job they are finding that with the increased size of their electorates and the increased functions of the Federal Parliament it is becoming a little bit- much and they are not able to perform functions on behalf of electors in the manner in which they could perform them if there were fewer electors. Consequently, T think that this modest suggestion of the Government for increasing the numbers in the House of Representatives by a dozen or so should give relief to those members. I cannot see anything serious to object to in the referendum proposal that is put before the Parliament today.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– We are today, of course, witnessing one of the greatest confidence tricks ever perpetrated on the public. I will not say that it is an unsuspecting public, because I think the people suspect very strongly that a confidence trick is being perpetrated by this Government. Once upon a time it used to be a little thing involving a pea and three thimbles, but we have become much more sophisticated now and we put out our honey pots. Nevertheless, whichever way one looks at it, it is still a confidence trick. We are told, of course, that the Government has not an intention to increase the numbers and that if it increases the numbers it will increase them only by twelve, but the Government forgets to add that any future Government is not bound by any decision of this Government and that the next Government can then increase the numbers still further. Let me put my position quite clearly. 1 do not for one moment believe that anything should be done to keep alive the Senate as it is at present constituted. In other words, if it is to bc a Party House. I am all for its abolition now.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– Make it at the end of the honourable senator’s term.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Everyone in industry does the same.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Yes, of course, the whole world docs it. Let us all draw a mantle of sanctity about ourselves and don our haloes, and everyone will be happy. But let me not be diverted from the point 1 wanted to make. There are too many politicians, and the people of Australia believe this to be the fact. I shall oppose the referendum proposals, but I shall say to the people that, no matter what they are told, there will still be an increase in the number of parliamentarians.

Let me get back to my final point about the Senate. As I said earlier, I believe that unless this becomes a States House it may just as well be abolished. If we are going to break the nexus, that will be the end of the Senate completely; the Senate will have no power whatsoever. So I find myself in this position: 1 believe that if the Senate remains a party House and not a States House, it should be abolished; on the other hand, if the Senate is to remain any kind of force at all then we as a body should rise up and condemn this referendum, because all it will achieve is a weakening of the power of the Senate by increasing the numbers in the House of Representatives without increasing our numbers. This is of particular importance to a State such as Tasmania, and I know that in Tasmania the referendum proposal will be thrown out by the biggest majority ever. It is appalling that this waste of money should be indulged in because of a demand by the Liberal Party in New South Wales. In Tasmania we will throw out the proposal because we can see that what little chance we have of representation in a big Parliament rests in the Senate and nowhere else.

If the number of members of the House of Representatives is to be increased, please do not say in justification: ‘We will only increase the number of members by twelve.’ That is only for the very immediate future. Shortly after that, when the next government or the following government comes into office the question will arise again of more representation. I speak now for Tasmania, but I am sure that the same may bc said on behalf of South Australia and

Western Australia and even Queensland. The influence of the Senate will be diminished because over half the members of the House of Representatives are from New South Wales and Victoria. So that from the point of view of Tasmania, the breaking of the nexus will mean that Tasmania will have less and less influence in the Senate, and in the Parliament as a whole. If honourable senators who wish to uphold the rights of the Senate but who support this Bill think that 1 am a shocker because I suggest the abolition of the Senate and if they say that the Senate is a wonderful institution, they should be ashamed of themselves for supporting the referendum. Honourable senators cannot have it both ways. If they believe that the Senate serves a useful purpose, whether as a Party House or a States House, in all conscience how can they say that the nexus must be broken? They are cutting their own throats as far as the powers of the Senate are concerned. Honourable senators should realise this and should stop being influenced by Ministers who urge them to vote for the Party. They

Say: ‘Because the Party has put up this proposition, we have to vote for it.’

Turning to the Australian Labor Parly,

Only one Labor Senator has spoken in this debate. Labor senators are too ashamed to speak on this question. I know that Labor senators from Tasmania are with me in regard to this question, and so also are some Liberal senators from Tasmania. Some Liberal senators from Tasmania will vote against this legislation, but some who are hoping for ministerial promotion probably will vote for it. Because of the union of Liberal and Labor senators, the Bill will be passed. We will have a referendum and going out to that referendum will be many hypocrites with their tongues in their checks. In fact, their tongues will be so swollen in their cheeks that they will not even utter a word for the ‘Yes’ case. They will say: “The Party said we have to do this. I am a good Party man so I am supporting this but do not vote for it. Vote against it. That is the best thing to do.’ Is it possible to have greater hypocrites than there are in this chamber? Are you not ashamed of yourselves? Have you no consciences? Honourable senators say that we must uphold the Senate, yet they attempt to denigrate it themselves. They accuse me of denigrating the Senate, but they are doing it themselves every time that they say that the nexus should be broken. I can only say that if that attitude persists, we should voluntarily abolish the Senate.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I am bound to say that I gained the impression from listening to the honourable senator that he not only disliked the proposal for a referendum but that he also disliked practically everybody both in and out of the Senate. That is a pity. While his remarks were engaging, they were not convincing. I enter this debate for a very brief period to speak on what appear to me to be the main points to be decided by the referendum - points which I think are already being distorted in many of the speeches in this debate and which were distorted in the debate on the last proposal of this nature.

The first point I wish to make is that the proposed referendum is not to seek permission to enlarge the size of the House of Representatives. There is no need for a referendum in order to enlarge the size of the House of Representatives. It can be enlarged at any time. A referendum is not required for that purpose. What is more, without a shadow of a doubt, the size of the House of Representatives will be enlarged no matter what may be the result of the referendum. If it is not enlarged soon, it will be enlarged later. Without any question, it will at some time be enlarged. There is no need for a referendum to be carried before its enlargement. So those people who speak of the referendum as though it were asking people to approve of the size of the House of Representatives being enlarged are already misrepresenting the position. It does not do that at all. Nor is it a referendum to enable more politicians to be employed. It is not. It is a referendum which will reduce the number of politicians because when the size of the House of Representatives is enlarged - if the referendum is carried - it will not be necessary to increase the number of senators. But if the referendum is not carried, then when the size of the House of Representatives is increased in future it will be necessary to increase the number of senators. So, without doubt if the referendum is rejected, in the future there will be more politicians than there would be otherwise.

This legislation is simply a proposal to remove the necessity to increase the number of senators when the number of members of the House of Representatives is increased; and’ that is all it is. Tt is not a referendum which can in any way affect the powers of the Senate, to which Senator Turnbull gave some attention. The Senate will retain with its size, or such later size as may be decided and not necessarily by referendum, the powers which it presently retains. They will not be diminished in any way whatever in the conduct of this House. The position will remain exactly as it is. (t has been said that there may be a diminution of the powers of the Senate in the future because there may be a disagreement between the Senate and the House of Representatives, and if that arises there is provision for a joint sitting. It is said that if the Senate were not a large Senate it would not have as much effect in such a joint sitting as it would if it had a membership of sixty. This argument appears to me to proceed directly from cloud cuckooland. It envisages sixty or eighty or ninety senators going across in a body to a joint sitting, seeking to redress a majority in the House of Representatives. Everybody here knows that in reality that will not happen.

– It will not go through, it will be defeated.

Senator WOOD:

– It will go through this Parliament but it will be donkey licked by the people. As has been pointed out, the figure of 85,000 includes every man, woman, child and babe in arms in the community. We have been told about the great amount of work that parliamentarians have to do. If a member of Parliament wants to make himself a messenger boy or a stamp licker he can find a lot of work to do, but the true purpose of a parliamentarian is to study legislation so that he can make a contribution to the discussion on it. That is the most important part of his duties.

What will be the result if this legislation is passed? We will create more seats. Will they be created in the country areas? Of course not. They will be created in the metropolitan areas where the Federal Government has branches of its departments to which people may go and receive due consideration. I know that many parliamentarians think that the more of these little things they do for the people the more likely they are to retain their seats. As one member of the House of Representatives said to me yesterday: ‘You have to keep your seat, you know’. But suppose that man was not already in Parliament and was contesting that seat. Then he would say: ‘Why should so and so, who is already in Parliament, have certain privileges so that he cannot be beaten?’ This is purely politics.

Let me turn my mind to a very simple field in which I served for many years. As I think Senator Gair will recall, 1 was Mayor of the city of Mackay. Certain aldermen encouraged people to come to them regarding such matters as a broken footbridge, a leaking tap or grass which had not been cut. My policy was that Mackay Council officers were there to discuss problems with the people and if possible to rectify them. I never found that the Council staff were at all hostile when dealing with the people. Eventually things were run so well that only on very rare occasions did a member of the public ask to see me. I think Senator Gair will agree with me that Mackay was as well run as any other city in Queensland. He would know because he was Premier of Queensland at that time. One can build up a lot of postage stamp work if one is so inclined but that is not the true purpose of a man coming into Parliament. His true purpose is to legislate for this country.

Why do we need more parliamentarians? Should we not ask the people of Australia: Do you need more parliamentarians?’ If that question were put to them in the referendum the Government would be beaten in all States.

Senator Gair:

– A salary of $8,000 a year is a lot to pay for a message boy.

Senator WOOD:

– Of course it is. We have heard a lot about the Constitution and the people who spent so much time in their deliberations on it. According to the Bill now before the Senate we are being asked to accept that those deliberations took place so many years ago that their results are now outdated. In my opinion the framers of the Constitution devoted deep thought, deliberation and discussion to the task of framing it. It is most refreshing to see that in their deliberations they were not pushing the political party wheelbarrow. That is a very important aspect to remember. Consequently we have in our Constitution evidence of a far sighted outlook. The framers of the Constitution were looking ahead.

Senator Dittmer:

– Just the same, they made mistakes in the Constitution.

Senator WOOD:

– There is no doubt of that. Everyone can make mistakes but these people have given us such a fine Constitution that up to the present the number of amendments to it to which the people of Australia have consented has been so small that I should think any government would be timid about placing a referendum proposal such as this before them.

– Yes, and here is the amazing part of this - the major political parties supporting this Bill make sure that each State has equal representation at their Federal council and executive meetings on the same basis as each State has equal representation in the Senate. It can be seen therefore that the Senate loomed very largely in the thoughts of the framers of our Constitution and it is essential that nothing be done to reduce the value of the Senate.

All sorts of disparaging things have been said about the Senate. We know that the newspapers hardly notice that it exists. But that does not decrease its importance. A thing is important because it is there. If this Senate were not here, I make bold to say, the larger States would look after themselves more than they do now and the smaller States would get less than they get now. There is no doubt about that. Human nature being what it is, members of the House of Representatives, looking after their electorates, naturally would see that they got the bigger slice of the cake.

Senator Dittmer:

– They do it now.

Senator WOOD:

– They may, but there is some safeguard. The Senate may be likened to certain other bodies. For a time 1 was Chairman of the Mackay Fire Brigade Board. The people of a small community paid sums of money month after month for a fire brigade. I sometimes thought it was a lot of money to pay. But suppose a fire broke out. Suppose a person was away from his home or business when it caught fire. He would be pleased then that he had a fire brigade. It may seem odd to some people to make this comparison with the Senate, but the same reasoning applies here. If the Senate did not exist the people would find that they really needed it.

Senator Laught said that if the nexus were broken the importance of the Senate and the value of senators would not be decreased. He is wrong. At present the House of Representatives outnumbers the Senate by two to one. Does anybody mean to tell me that if we were outnumbered by four to one our views would carry as much weight as they do now? Great play has been made of the possibility of a joint meeting of the two Houses in connection wilh a double dissolution and the need to ensure that Senate representation is not outweighed by that of the House of Representatives. I agree with this reasoning. Our Constitution preserves the role of the Senate in the Parliament because one never knows what might happen, lt may be that a joint meeting of the two Houses becomes necessary. If our numbers vis-a-vis those of the House of Representatives are reduced we will not have the same importance. Make no bones about this, because we are only humans, and so are members of the House of Representatives. The breaking of the nexus will mean a loss of status for the Senate.

Here I take leave to quote extensively from a speech made by an honourable senator opposite whom we all regard very highly. Those of us who came into this Senate in 1949 will remember how tremendously impressed we were with his speeches. It was obvious that a great deal of work went into the preparation of them. I hope that I will be pardoned for saying that the quality of his team in those days did not match the quality of the present Opposition. The Opposition has built itself up immeasurably in recent years with the result that we now have a much better Senate than we had some time ago. Back in 1948 the senator to whom I refer had to do a terrific amount of work. He did a magnificent job. When he leaves us at the end of this term he will be remembered as one of the really fine parliamentarians of this country. I refer, of course, to Senator McKenna. I say these things not just to butter him up; I believe them. In 1948 when the Labour Government increased the size of the House of Representatives and the Senate, our side, being in opposition, apparently wanted to break the nexus. We were strongly opposed to the increase in the size of the Parliament. The speeches of that time make rather funny reading today. Senator McKenna, as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, was arguing why the nexus should not be broken and why the Senate in relation to the House of Representatives should maintain representation in the ratio of 1:2. Speaking in the debate on the Representation Bill on 6th May 1948 Senator McKenna said:

I point out, in the first place, that as the Constitution stands at present, it is completely obligatory upon the Parliament to enlarge the Senate simultaneously with any enlargement of the House of Representatives. I agree wilh Senator Clothier that it would be completely futile for the Parliament to go to the people with the suggestion that there should not be a proportionate increase of the membership of the Senate. The people would never, in any circumstances, weaken the position of the Senate in the Federal legislature. My learned friend, Senator O’sullivan, knows very well that when a draftsman approaches a legal document his duty is to provide for all foreseeable possibilities - not to bother about probabilities, but to make provision-

This is important: to meet any possible contingency that may arise. That, with the limited vision that their times permitted, is exactly what the founders of federation did. They applied themselves to their task in the light of the circumstances of their day, ami they looked further ahead than the honourable senator is able to see even today.

The honourable senator continued:

I am dealing strictly with the proposal implicit in the amendment, namely that the number of members of the Senate should not bc increased. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, .. who have assumed the mantle and the title of guardians of the States, have admitted, through Senator O’sullivan, that they see no danger in the proposal that the number of members of the Senate should not be increased. As T have said, the founders of federation did see a danger, and they provided very particularly for it in section 57 of the Constitution.

Section 24, which provides that the House of Representatives shall be approximately twice the numerical strength of the Senate, must be rend in conjunction with section 57. That section provides that if the two chambers disagree twice under various conditions, there may be a double dissolution. But it carries the matter one stage further than that and provides that if the same deadlock occurs after a double dissolution, then the Senate and the House of Representatives must sit and vote together to clear the deadlock and determine the matter. If honourable senators opposite can see no threat to the position of the Stares in the federal legislature in a joint meeting of only 36 senators with 121 members of the House of Representatives, compared with a situation in which there would be 60 senators and 121 members of the House of Representatives, then I shall be surprised indeed. They must recognise that the States will be in a very much belter position if the ratio of two to one between the

House of Representatives and the Senate is preserved. It is clear to me that members of the Opposition either did not know the import of their proposal - as their statements suggest - or planned it as a subtle and very strong attack upon the position of the States in the federal legislative scheme. I submit that now that they do know the possible effect of their proposal only one course lies open to them unless they are convinced that the position of the States should be weakened. That course is to withdraw the amendment

Replying to an interjection, Senator McKenna continued:

That is so, but it also preserves the provision that the number of members of the House of Representatives shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators.

He continued:

They arc very firmly related in the proportion of two to one. The proposal in the amendment is that the ratio should be altered to the detriment of the States.

Note those words:

I point out that that is a deliberate attack upon the States now that the honourable senator knows the reason why the founders of the Constitution designed that procedure - to protect the States at a joint sitting of the two Houses. I warn the Opposition-

That was us at the time.

Senator Henty:

– Who said this?

Senator WOOD:

– Senator McKenna. He went on: 1 warn the Opposition that if it persists with this amendment the electors will be reminded that it deliberately tried to weaken the position of the States in this Parliament.

He continued:

The position is that the present ratio of two to one between the House of Representatives and the Senate will be preserved under the Government’s proposals. The proposal deliberately submitted by the Opposition would reduce the ratio to the detriment of the States’ House. In other words, the Opposition says, “Increase the numbers in the House of Representatives, but do not increase the numbers of the Slates’ representatives”.

Senator O’Sullivan. ; Quite so.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

– The honourable senator does not need to have a particularly keen intellect in order to realise that that would operate to the detriment of the States. I repeat that if members of the Opposition persist with this amendment in the light of the information that they now have, they can expect that the electors will be reminded, often and strongly, of the stand that they have taken.

Senator Gair:

– I think I will spend a few dollars and get a reproduction of that speech.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, it is very good. He was a very thoughtful parliamentarian. It is rather interesting to see how things changed. We have heard about the founders of the Constitution and how things would be done now if a constitution had to be written. They would not be different at all. If there were no Commonwealth Parliament at present and the people decided to form one and held a convention to discuss it, the same things would be thrashed out now, such matters as the protection of the small States against the larger States. The same issues would be discussed now as were discussed then. The passage of time has not made any material difference between what was discussed then and what would be discussed now. One of the key things which would be discussed would be making sure that the big States did not overrun the small States through their great representation in a single house as against the advantage of having two houses.

It is interesting to know that in 1 948 a member of the Opposition of that time spoke very strongly on this matter. He was opposing an increase in the number of parliamentarians, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, lt is marvellous, when political expediency comes into a matter and politicians are trying to put something across the public, how they change their tunes. The gentleman I am referring to happens to be Mr Harold Holt, now the Prime Minister for Australia, who was leading the band wagon in trying to delude the people at that time with respect to giving us a small Senate. This is what he said in opposing the increase in the number of parliamentarians proposed by the Labor Government in which Senator McKenna was so prominent. At page 1097 of Hansard of 23rd April 1948 he is reported as having said:

It is, therefore, proper to ask what are the reasons that have actuated the Government in bringing forward so hurriedly this proposal for a major constitutional change. For the first few moments of my speech I propose to examine the reasons put forward by the Government through its spokesmen who have already addressed themselves to the bill.

He then went on to deal with the various reasons. He said:

First, it is claimed that so great has been the growth of the Australian population since federation that it is reasonable that there should be more members, and other English-speaking countries, notably Great Britain and Canada, are cited as illustrations of larger national parliaments in relation to population.

Further on he said:

Because the Government’s case principally rests on those arguments, it is appropriate that we should examine each of them. I think it will be found that the case made out by the Government rests on a flimsy base. Undoubtedly, the population of Australia has greatly increased since federation,-

This is interesting in view of the fact that the reverse of this argument is being put forward now as to why we should have more parliamentarians. He says now that because the population is growing we must have more parliamentarians. He said in 1948:

Undoubtedly, the population of Australia has greatly increased since federation, but a mere increase of population is not the proper test of what a member of Parliament has to do.

Interesting, is it not?

The population has grown substantially, but so have the means, conveniences and amenities that enable us to cope with the increased numbers of people. The men who went to the first Australian Parliament in Melbourne in 1901 travelled by horse carriage, Cobb’s coach, slow trains and slow ships: but the men who come to the Parliament today from Perth or the northern parts of Queensland fly to Canberra in a matter of hours. The men of those days had no secretaries to assist them in their tasks, no speedy Buicks in which to drive hither and thither and no greatly expanded public service to examine problems for them and furnish them with the answers. In the first Cabinet there were nine Ministers-

This is ludicrous when you think what we have done now in increasing the number of Ministers again - and in the second and third only eight, whereas today the Ministry consists of nineteen mcn to carry out the weighty tasks that are pressing on them so heavily.

Said sarcastically, of course.

But is the test of numbers fair? A cursory examination of the facts will show how hollow that claim is.

How hollow it is. This is the very argument being put forward now in reverse. Mr Holt said in 1948: 1 represent 83,000 or 84,000 people in my electorate of Fawkner, but there is no part of that electorate that I cannot drive to by car within lj minutes. 1 would not argue that 1 have more to do with more than 80,000 constituents than has my colleague, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Ryan), whose constituency is only a few miles away from mine. He has a scattered and diverse agricultural area to represent. I have but two municipalities in my electorate and he has twenty or thirty in his. If honourable members consider the circumstances of the representative of a rural electorate-

This is interesting from the point of view of Country Party members. wilh a much greater area, they will see that his task is much more arduous than that of men who represent compact metropolitan areas. But will the Government’s proposal meet that problem? It will nol. The Government does not attempt to suggest that it will. It makes a specious plea to the public that as there are more people to be represented there should be more members of the Parliament, but in the areas where the task of representation is difficult now because >f their size the problem will not be mct by this proposal.

What Mr Holt, the present Prime Minister, meant by that was that a member of a country electorate might have a lot less electors but he might have a lot more work to do. I think that this speech of the present Prime Minister, made when he was in Opposition, absolutely condemns the proposition being debated today. If I were in any doubt at all about what 1 might do, reading Mr Holt’s speech of that time has confirmed my view more strongly than ever that the right course for the Parliament and for the Senate today is to throw out this Bill. If the Senate does not throw it out then the right thing for the people of Australia to do is to give the Government such a shock that it will not think the reply has been No in six States but will feel the reply came from a dozen States.

Before I conclude, we have had some very interesting debates but on the side of the Yes campaign I have hardly heard one proposition as to why the matter should go before the people. I feel that those honourable senators who have spoken on the No side have had much more constructive arguments to put forward as to why the proposal should be rejected. I know it is being peddled around that one must be one of the team, that one must do this and must bow and scrape and so on. I think we owe Senator Lillico a great debt of gratitude for turning up a quotation which I did not know existed. In his excellent speech last night, when he strongly opposed this referendum proposal - it was a short but very effective speech - he told us in no uncertain terms where he stands. Senator Lillico left us wilh a quotation from a person who at times expressed some lofty ideas. When that person was in the mood to express such things many people regarded them very highly. That person is the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. As Senator Lillico said last night:

We have been over all this ground before - about eighteen months ago. I remember that away back in 1944 Sir Robert Menzies, who was then Leader of the Opposition, claimed that what he termed to be the organic law of the community - he was referring to the Constitution - should not be a matter for party politics; that it should be a matter upon which each individual exercises his freedom of choice.

We have had people on this side of the chamber who have tried to tell me that we as individuals should not step out of line, that we should acquiesce with the majority here and should give the people the opportunity to decide.

Senator Henty:

– 1 suggest that the honourable senator should keep to a gentlemen’s agreement.

Senator WOOD:

– Government senators are getting very annoyed because I have gone a few minutes over my time. The Government is in such a hurry to get this through. I was debating a rather magnificent Constitution. Altering the Constitution is a very important matter, although the Government does not think so. I am one who does not claim the right in this Senate of speaking during the broadcast. I have never asked to speak over the air yet. Senator Lillico was particularly forthright last night. I thought his speech was excellent. Let me remind those people who say we should not step out of line, of Sir Robert Menzies, who said that this should not be a party issue. I want to say emphatically that the chief duty of parliamentarians is their parliamentary work. If they want to be messenger boys, that is their look out. I cannot see any reason for an increase in the number of parliamentarians either in the other place or in this place. Senator Mattner has referred to the experience of himself and of other senators who have represented or acted for members of the House of Representatives when those members have been away overseas. No senator was killed by work when performing his own duties and looking after the affairs of a member of the House of Representatives. A great deal has been said about the work that parliamentarians do, but I remind honourable senators that the Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that, with the amenities and assistance now available to us, it is much easier for us to carry out our work. As parliamentarians we are not paid so that we can be continually electioneering. We are paid purely for our parliamentary work.

In conclusion, let me say that I stand strongly opposed to these proposals to alter the Constitution and that I believe the people of Australia will vote strongly against them. The main question exercising their minds will be: ‘Do we want more parliamentarians?’ I agree with them that we do not.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– I have addressed myself to this subject matter on, 1 think, three previous occasions. Certainly I have done so on at least two occasions. The Bill now before the Senate is not an original conception of the Government. This matter is not one that has arisen only recently. Its genesis lies in the report submitted by the Constitutional Review Committee in 1958, supported by the further report tabled in 1959. In those years there was no question of a redistribution. The recommendation of the Committee at that time was based on anything but the considerations that operate in relation to redistribution. The recommendation was made by eleven members of the Committee, with one member dissenting. The Committee comprised six members from each side of politics - the Government parties and the Opposition. So this matter has been under consideration for a very long time. Towards the end of 1964 I had the privilege, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, to put before the Senate some four Bills, seeking referenda covering recommendations of that Committee, this recommendation being amongst them. I regret that all of the recommendations of the Committee in relation to this Parliament are not before us now, because they formed a pattern. At the moment, we have only one of them before us.

I also put on record that in 1960 the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party unanimously approved the whole of the recommendations of that Committee. So the Party has not made any recent and rash decision on the matter. I also indicate that in 1961 the Federal Conference of our Party - at my urging, I concede - laid down the proposition that the Party would support all or any of those recommendations. That shows how keen is the Labor Party upon getting constitutional reform not merely >n this field but also in others. There are far more important matters that could be the subject of a referendum, but unnfortunately we are confined to dealing with the one or two that the Government has selected.

Having spoken in 1964 on those four Bills, and having spoken on this Bill or a similar Bill when it was before us in 1965, 1 indicate to those who wish to study Hansard that I am now not traversing the ground that I touched upon then. I am concerned now to traverse the speeches that have been made on this measure, largely in the Senate. I have been prompted to intervene in the debate by many references to the speeches I made in 1948 and to the select committee’s report to which I subscribed in 1950. Senator Wood almost convinced me that 1 deserved the build-up that he gave me, no doubt with a view to letting me down with the greatest possible bump. I was almost convinced that 1 deserved his high praise when I heard him read what I had said. I was lost in admiration of what 1 heard. If I were back in 1948 and were faced with exactly the same situation, I would repeat every word that my friend flattered me by quoting in the course of this debate.

The principle involved was the protection of the Senate at a joint sitting. The purpose of the two to one ratio was to ensure that the Senate would not be submerged if a joint sitting were held. In 194S and 1950 I affirmed that principle with all the eloquence I could command, and I inform the Senate that I have never changed my mind on the need for that protection. Those who quoted my speeches of 1948 and 1950, for reasons which seemed good to them, neglected entirely to quote the reports of 1958 and 1959 in which 1 subscribed to the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee. Why did they go back to 1948 and 1950? Why did they ignore what McKenna said in the reports of 1958 and 1959 on this very subject of the need to protect the Senate at a joint sitting? Why did they ignore the Bills I presented to this Parliament on this very subject at the end of 1964? Why did they not quote from the speech that I made on that occasion? Why did they not quote from the speech I made in .1965 on a Bill similar to this Bill? The reason is completely obvious. It did not suit them. Of course, one might claim that they acted in ignorance. If they did, that was blameworthy. One might think that they acted with malice. 1 do not believe that, and I do not suggest it. So I. fall back on the first point - ignorance.

Quite frankly, it frightens me to find honourable senators approaching the subject of constitutional amendment with their minds prejudiced before they begin to look at the subject. Finding something that I said in 1948 which suits their prejudiced view, their non-objective view, they seize on it with great glee and never look one inch further. That is not what we have come to expect from members of this place. We do not expect that they will address themselves to a matter of truly national importance, one affecting the Constitution, and not put the whole story before us. We do not expect that they will come here unprepared, that they will not take an objective look at the subject and, above all, that they will not be prepared to present their cases objectively.

In 1958, in recommending the breaking of the nexus, the Constitutional Review Committee made other recommendations. I invite the Senate to take time to read paragraphs 205 to 208 of the report, dealing with the position of the Senate at a joint silting and facing the fact that the nexus operating then was a protection. That is its primary purpose. The Committee dealt with that and supplied a neater and more effective protection. This is contained in the Bills that I put before the Senate in 1964. The Committee said that there should be two tests as to whether a matter should pass at such a joint sitting. The first one was an absolute majority of all members assembled whether they be members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Not only that, but at least one-half of all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in at least one-half of the States had to agree to the proposition before it could be carried. The principle for which I contended in 1948 and 1950 was the safe-, guarding of the Senate at a joint sitting. The Committee had the great sense to discard the clumsy inexpert device of a two to one ratio to determine the number of members of the House of Representatives solely to protect the Senate at a joint sitting.

They could not have chosen a sillier instrument. When I spoke in 1948 and 1950 it was the only instrument available. I spoke inthe terms of what was then the Constitution. The nexus was for the one primary purpose of preserving the position of the Senate at a joint sitting. The question of a disagreement and a joint sitting is not before us today. That is dealt with in section 57 of the Constitution which refers to disagreements between the Houses. That question ought to be before us. If it were before us I would support the protection of the Senate as recommendedby the Constitutional Review Committee and presented by me on behalf of the Labor Party in this chamber as recently as 1964. Quite frankly, I am distressed to find that there has been a nonobjective representation of the view of the Labor Party and of myself. I think that is completely unfortunate.

Now let me deal with some of the statements which I have encountered in this place. I suppose I should thank Senator Wood for his kindly reference to me. Senator Gair in his speech yesterday claimed that on the part of both the Government and the Labor Party there were considerations affecting the distribution of electorates which prompted this measure. So far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, 1 have already said enough completely to disprove that claim. This question was determined and accepted by the Party in 1958, 1959 and 1960 when the question of redistribution was not under way. That is the first claim that I reject.

Senator Gair said ; and this is completely incorrect - that the figure of 85,000 which is the divisor to be used in determining the number of members in each State - not the number of people in each electorate - is the quota included in this legislation and that it can be altered only by a further referendum. That statement is utterly and completely wrong. The figure is inserted in the simple Bill before us, which states that the figure which is to be determined by the Parliament is to be not less than 85,000. No further referendum is required to alter the figure. It merely means that the Parliament decides the figure. It can make it 100,000, 150,000 or any other figure it wishes.

Senator Wright:

– The honourable senator does not suggest that an alteration of the

Now 1 come to another statement which appears on page 288 of yesterday’s Hansard. Senator Gair pointed out that under the new proposals the size of the House of Representatives would grow until when we achieved a population equal to the present population of the United States of America we would finish up with some 2,350 members of the House of Representatives, using a quota of 85,000 for determining the number of members. Of course, that embarks on the realm offantasy. The truth is that the divisor will grow at the will of this Parliament as the population increases. There will, in this country, be similar development to that in America. I refer to something that Senator Keating - a senator from New York who was in Australia attending a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting and who was supplanted quite recently by Robert Kennedy - told me. He said that while he represented hundreds of thousands of people, the Government had given him a staff of forty, including clerks, research workers and public relation officers. That is the position of all senators in the United States. They get staff according to their electorate requirements. We will see that development in Australia.

When an honourable senator stands up in this place and says that there is one senator for hundreds of thousands of people in America, he wants to remember that it is not just one person, but he and forty other persons who perform the representation and carry out the work. That staff of forty has to be taken into account in any proper comparison between Australia and the United States. It is inevitable that as years pass - I do not say it will be in the immediate future - we will have a similar kind of development to that which has taken place in the United States. There will be a constant increase - not a decrease because that is not possible under this proposal - in the divisor as the population grows, and the most important thing of all will be that more help will be given to members to enable them to do their work.

Their work is important and the various grades of it vary. But the most important thing that is required in the House of Representatives is time for the members there to think. They do not get that now. That is one reason why a comparison can be made in favour of the Senate in the matter of the quality of debates that take place in the two chambers. The members of the House of Representatives are engaged day and night on work in their electorates. I tell all the members of the branches of my Party and the people whom I encounter in the State that I represent to leave their members alone and not to be dragging them to functions. If they are to be good parliamentarians they have to have lime to sit down, study, read, think, and serve on committees. We in this chamber have an advantage over members of the House of Representatives. They are harried day and night. I see that happening to members of the House of Representatives with whom I am in close contact. From my own observations 1 say that there is a need at this moment and there will be a continuing need as time passes for more members in the House of Representatives.

I only want to refer to one other matter that was raised by Senator Gair. At page 290 of yesterday’s Hansard he is recorded as having said:

. :i No vote will mean no increase in the number of senators and members of the House of Representatives.

That seems to tell the people that if they vote No there will be no increase. The truth is that there can be an unlimited increase if the people vote No. As a matter of political good sense the increase will have to take place in multiples of four in each State for the Senate and twice that number for the other place; that is, twenty-four senators and forty-eight members of the House of Representatives. The increase will be in steps of seventy-two. The Minister for Education and Science (Senator Gorton), the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) who introduced this Bill in this chamber and the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) are completely correct when they say that that is the alternative to doing what is now contemplated in this measure - altering the Constitution to enable the Government to increase by a modest twelve or twenty the number of members in the House of Representatives. That is the sensible thing to do in the light of the situation as it is developing. Why hang around our necks and treat as immutable a Constitution that was born in the horse and buggy days, sixty-seven years ago? Let us grow up; let us be adult. Do no import these confusions and misrepresentations, however innocent, into the debates of this Parliament.

Senator Wright spoke in this debate. I want to refer to what he had to say in December 1965 on the Bill that preceded this one. I shall quote from page 1945 of Hansard. I am doing this not for any personal advantage over opponents of this measure, or to provoke disputation with them, but because these are the records that intelligent people will read. Certain things cannot be left unanswered, because they convey the wrong impression. On that occasion, Senator Wright said: . . the people should understand that an essential part of Senator McKenna’. proposal last year to break the deadlock provision was to eliminate, in the resolution of any differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate, any reference to the people.

That, too, is completely incorrect, because the proposal regarding disagreements made by the committee of which he and 1 were both members would have left the Government with the unimpaired right to have a double dissolution - to take the whole Senate and the. whole House of Representatives to the people. There is no question about that.

We offered an alternative. A joint sitting was not to be compulsory; it was to be an alternative. The Government had the choice. It could take the matter to the people and let the people decide it or there could be a joint sitting at which the matter might be resolved. On that point we inserted the provision that protected this Senate in a joint sitting.

The Labor Party in this matter has been consistent and sensible and it does not believe in invoking a stupid two to one ratio to protect the Senate in a joint sitting. The Labor Party has a simple double standard to be achieved at a joint sitting to carry a proposal. There has been much talk about joint sittings. Let me show how utterly remote is the possibility of a joint sitting. It can arise under the Constitution, as it stands at present, only when the Senate has rejected a Bill put up by the House of Representatives; when it has repeated the rejection after three months; and then when there nas been an election - those two events followed by an election - and the Bill has been put up again in the new Parliament. That is the only provision in the Constitution for a joint sitting.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And the election is a double dissolution.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is after a double dissolution and the same Bill that provoked it is presented again. It is quite obvious why there has never been a joint sitting. The situation has not arisen in sixty-six years and I defy anybody to tell me that it could arise in the foreseeable future. The situation has changed from when I spoke in 1948. I spoke at a time when I was accustomed to seeing a majority of thirtythree to three in this place. There is now proportional representation and it is a different world. It is an entirely different Senate. It is time that we, in this place, faced up to that.

Senator Wood opposed the Bill for reasons that did not seem good to me. In seeking to show a change in principle for the protection of the Senate at a remote joint sitting he quoted my speeches. I have already commented upon the fact that this was not fairly done. No advertence was made to the principle from which I have not deviated in the interim. I have simply accepted a much more facile and suitable instrument for the purpose. I was very impressed with Senator Gorton’s speech. It was the briefest and the most effective. Each of the principles that he put before this Senate this afternoon was right in every particular. We have been told that when this Bill is carried the power of the Senate will be adversely affected. It has been suggested that the Senate will be weakened and destroyed. But what power is touched? The simple answer to that is that not one power is affected. Our position in the Parliament vis-a-vis the House of Representatives is identical with what it always has been. There is not the slightest diminution of power and whilst the Government has not seen fit to go further and include a provision to deal with deadlocks and provide for joint sittings at which the Senate will be protected, this is a first step. If the honourable senators who are opposing this measure will join with me, when this is over, to try to get a Bill through for a referendum dealing with deadlocks, I will undertake to support to the limit the same principle that I affirmed in 1948. I undertake that the members of my party will support it to the limit to ensure that there is protection at the joint sittings - and we would anticipate an early joint sitting, and possibly a number of them in the new situation. We will, vote for such a Bill and we hope that members opposite would join with us.

One of the things nearest to my heart in this Parliament is the desire to get our Constitution brought up to date. It is no reflection on the fathers of Federation to say that there are defects in the Constitution. They wrote it at the time when there was not even a gramophone, no cinema, no wireless telegraphy, no petrol as a motive power for motor vehicles and when there were horse drawn vehicles. They were literally horse and buggy days, apart from the steam engines on the railways.

Senator Cant:

– There was no sliced bread in those days.

Senator McKENNA:

– The honourable senator is right. This is an entirely new world. Aviation did not exist in those days. Aviation was not even a word, yet now we are all so familiar with aviation. No-one flew in those days and nothing was known of nuclear power or of the great technological advantages that the world has seen.

– I did not say that the honourable senator was unreliable. I said that he did not finish the story.

Senator Gair:

– .1 will finish it.

Senator HENTY:

– If the honourable senator had finished the story, he would have said that if we do not break the nexus then we would have 150 senators. I thought that I should fill in that little gap which the honourable senator left in his argument. I want to deal with this matter quite impartially, because it is a constitutional matter. Fears have been expressed by honourable senators, particularly on my side of the House, that the Australian Labor Party will abolish the Senate. They have said that that is written in its platform. But I am one who likes to judge people on their deeds, not on what they have written in certain things. I remember that in 1949 the Senate had thirty-six members, three of whom were from our side of politics and thirty-three of whom were from the Labor side. One could not get much better odds than that. I would like to have the opportunity to deal with legislation with a majority of thirty-three to three. I think I could put most things through the Senate under those circumstances.

The Labor Party also had a majority in the House of Representatives. What did it do? Did it abolish the Senate? No; it increased the number of senators from thirty-six to sixty. So I say that I like to judge people, particularly members of the Opposition, by their deeds and not by what is written in their platform. With great respect to Senator Murphy and the comment that he made the other day, I point out that what is written in the Labor Party’s platform is not always as inviolate as he sometimes thinks it is. As a matter of fact, 1 came into the Senate when it was enlarged to sixty. I say these things to allay the fears of those who believe that the Senate may be abolished. In 1949 the Labor Party increased the number of senators from thirty-six to sixty although it had full control of both Houses which would have enabled it to carry out the abolition of the Senate if it had so wished.

I have heard some very august names mentioned during this debate. The names of some of the founding fathers who favoured the two to one nexus have been mentioned. It is rather interesting to note that, as far as 1 can And, only one country other than Australia has a nexus between its upper and lower houses. I think that country is Norway. Canada has no nexus between its Senate and House of Commons.

Senator Wright:

– All Canadian senators are government appointees.

Senator HENTY:

There were not many in J 900 who openly predicted that party rivalry in the Senate would overshadow the functioning of the Senate as a house of the States. One of the few was Alfred Deakin who prophesied during the Convention at Sydney in 1897 that: the contentions in the Senate or out of it. and especially any contention between the two Houses, will not and cannot arise upon questions in regard to which States will be ranked against Stales. . . . in the United States, and also in Switzerland, and in Canada, as here, the whole of the States will be divided into two parties. Contests between the two houses will only arise when one party is in possession of a majority in the one chamber, and the other in possession of a majority in the other chamber. We have had it submitted to us that probably the Senate will be the more radical house of the two. I am willing to accept that suggestion for the purposes of my argument, though the argument is equally good either way. The House of Representatives would then be the more conservative body, and it is possible that a more conservative party in the House of Representatives would bc confronted by a more radical party in the senate. In both cases the result after a dissolution would be the same. The men returned as radicals would vote as radicals; the men returned as conservatives would vote as conservatives. The contest will not be. never has been, and cannot be, between States and States … it is certain that once this constitution is framed, it will be followed by the creation of two great national parties. Every Slate, every district, and every municipality, will sooner or later be divided on the great ground of principle, when principles emerge.

That was said by Alfred Deakin. He was very far-sighted. He saw that the Senate would become a political party House as it has done. His words were set out in the report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review. Paragraph 88 of the Committee’s report gives conclusions as to the role of the Senate as a States House in these words:

The Committee’s conclusion, which it regards as inescapable, is that the original notion of the Senate as a suites house was noi realised and, therefore, does not justify further increases in the number of senators even though future increases in the number of members of the House of Representatives will probably occur. To the extent that the Senate should represent State interests, as distinct from Commonwealth interests, those interests are sufficiently safeguarded by a Senate of sixty comprising ten senators from each of the original States.

– No it will not.

Senator HENTY:

– Pardon, it will. If the honourable senator will be silent for a moment be will learn the facts. The figure of 85,000 is the minimum divisor. That number will be divided into the population of the States to give the number of electorates in each State. Then the electoral law will take over and a redistribution will be made. There will not necessarily be 85,000 persons in each electorate because the electoral law provides for a margin of 20% either way. This should be made clear. Nevertheless, this Bill puts a restriction for the first time on the number of members of the House of Representatives.

I am reminded that my time has almost expired but I want to make one more point. Honourable senators heard me say this before and I feel very deeply about it: I am a tremendous believer in the Australian democratic system. After’ seventeen years in this Parliament I am a believer in the service that members of Parliament are called upon to give in the interests of their constituents and their country. I am tremendously impressed as 1 travel around the world with the possibilities that exist in Australia, in comparison with those existing anywhere else in the world, for the contacting of Ministers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion (by Senator Wright) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) speaking in reply for more than thirty minutes.

Senator HENTY:

– 1 thank the Senate for the courtesy that it has extended to me to enable me to tidy up one or two matters. I mentioned that there was only one parliament in the world with a bicameral system which had this link, this nexus, between the numbers of members in the two houses of parliament. That is the Parliament of Norway, in most other parliaments where there is a bicameral system there is no such inhibition. This situation in Australia was brought about in 1900. Sixty-seven long years have gone past since then and we have seen tremendous changes in this world. 1 do not think that any one of us in the Parliament at this time can be over-proud of the fact that we have not made more changes to the Constitution than we have made up to the present. This is something at which we shall have to look more closely in the future but, as one honourable senator opposite said, this is a start. Because the National Parliament is inhibited by a Constitution which is now sixty-seven years old and we have seen so many changes in the world, all of us must look at this problem and put forward our best endeavours to bring the position up to date.

– Each senator, each Minister and each member of the House of Representatives. I like our own system whereby people can get to their members in the House of Representatives, to their senators and to their Ministers, and whereby every three years the people have the safeguard of saying whether they will continue with those members and senators who are in the Parliament or whether they will replace them with others. This system of democracy, I believe, will not in any way be inhibited or touched by the breaking of the nexus, by eliminating from the Constitution the need, as the population of Australia grows, to increase the size of the Senate as the size of the House of Representatives is increased. This should be left to the wisdom of the people who, I believe, will carry this referendum.

Question put -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 48

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I move:

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Senator SCOTT:

– An honourable senator opposite has interjected that I should be ashamed of myself. It is the duty of the Senate and of the Parliament to place before the electors a clear title to the Bill that is to authorise a referendum.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Why is it necessary to alter it now?

Senator SCOTT:

– Because the Bill is before the Senate. We want to make the title more accurate so that people voting at the referendum can understand clearly the intention of the Parliament to alter the Constitution. The title as I propose it should be amended sets out quite clearly the intention of the Parliament. It states that the intention is to alter the Constitution so as to remove the need to increase the number of senators whenever the number of members of the House of Representatives is increased. The amended title would take the place of the title of the Bill received from the House of Representatives, which states:

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that the Number of Members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the Number of Senators.

Honourable senators who have spoken in this debate have referred to the need to tidy up the title and I have moved a motion to amend the title for just that purpose. Surely if we can place the matter in a concise, true and accurate form before the electors, they in turn can go to the referendum on voting day and vote yes or no to a proposition that is put, in my opinion, more clearly than in the original title of the Bill as presented to us by the House of Representatives.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– On behalf of the Opposition I indicate that we will oppose the motion. We undertook to support the Bill which was brought forward without qualification. We did so on the basis that, in any event, the Bill was for a referendum which ought to have been held a considerable time ago if the constitutional obligation of the Government had been observed.. In 1965 a Bill passed through both Houses which was in substance the same as this Bill. At that time the title of the Bill was A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution in relation to the Number of Members of each House of the Parliament’. No doubt some thought was given to that title, but when the Bill was again introduced this year into the House of Representatives the title was altered to its present form, that is, A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that the Number of Members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the Number of Senators’.

The proposition put forward by Senator Scott is that there should be an amendment so that the title will apppear as ‘A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to Remove the Need to increase the Number of Senators whenever the Number of Members of the House of Representatives is increased’. That seems to add another three words to the title and to invert the words in if. We take the view that such a move at this stage of the proceedings on a matter so grave as the alteration of the Constitution is calculated only to arouse suspicion as to what is being proposed. The matter has been dealt with solemnly in the House of Representatives. A unanimous vote of those present in the House of Representatives was accorded the measure in its present form, lt has been debated in this House in ils present form and we do not see that the proposed alteration is necessary in order that the measure may be properly presented by way of referendum to the people of the Commonwealth.

I repeal that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party has undertaken to support the measure without, reservation, without equivocation and without qualification. This qualification we will not support. We will oppose the amendment.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

It has been agreed that this is a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to remove the need to increase the number of senators whenever the number of members of the House of Representatives is increased. If this is agreed to be a true statement of the purposes of the Act, if it is agreed that we do not need a Bill for an Act in increase the number of members of the House of Representatives, what are the arguments against putting the question to the people in a form in which it most clearly expresses the intentions of the Parliament? I agree that it has some ultimate effect overall, but it is clearly and specifically a suggestion - this is agreed by all of us - that we need to remove the necessity to increase the number of senators. Why should we not say so? What are the objections to it?

Senator Gair:

– A fair question. Why was it not so stated in the first place?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– It is no argument lo say that previously a Bill with a different title was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. If those who speak in this place believe what they say, that should be the last reason to be advanced - that we should not suggest an amendment merely because another House has passed a measure. I urge all concerned to consider seriously whether the proposed title is not a better description of what we - the vast majority of us, according to the last division - want the people of Australia to do.

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) [9.001- Mr Chairman, I support the Leader of the Opposition, (Senator Murphy) in our opposition to the proposed alteration of the title of this Bill. It struck me that the proposal is a subtle one in which the negative has been accentuated and the positive has been eliminated. The difference is that as the Bill now stands it states that the number of members of the House of Representatives may toe increased. The Government is presenting to the people a proposal for an increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives. This is the main purpose of the Bill. But the proposed new title reads: ‘A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to remove the need to increase the number of senators whenever the number of members of the House of Representatives is increased.’ The public will read the first couple of lines and say: This is good - remove the senators.’ This could create a false impression in the minds of the public because a lot of people only read the first one or two lines whether on a ballot paper or in the title of a Bill.

I feel that to present the true facts to the people the old tide should be presented to them in the way it has been debated: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the number of senators.’ I feel that the change - as I said before - represents a subtle presentation of the same thing but wrapped up in a different cover. Therefore I support the Leader of the Opposition in his statement that the title we debated - and we supported it without qualification, as he mentioned - is now being qualified. So I oppose the amendment.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– Do I understand that we have been debating a Bill, for two days and two nights, the purport of which is not to increase the number of senators if it is carried? If we have been debating such a Bill then I cannot agree wilh the Minister for Education and Science (Senator Groton) that the Government is not going to increase the number of members in the House of Representatives. I thought that was why we had been debating this subject for two days and two nights.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– Mr Chairman, 1 cannot support the proposed amendment. As Senator Mattner said, we have been debating a Bill on a certain basis. I supported the referendum on that basis. I am not prepared to support it on the wording of this amendment. The primary purpose of the Bill undoubtedly is to achieve an increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives. In the proposed amendment this purpose is subordinate. This has been brought in as a second thought. I do not think it is entirely honest. 1 cannot support the amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– In opposing the amendment I want to say that I think we have gathered the wrong impression that the purpose of the Bill is of necessity to increase the number of members in one particular House or in either House. There has been a declaration, I think, by the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) or Government supporters to that effect but I do not think we are much concerned about what the Government may do in the future. The question is: what does this Bill provide? Clause 2 provides for the insertion of a new section 24 (3.) which states:

The number of members so determined in respect of a State shall bc the number ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the State by such number as is for the time being determined by the Parliament. . . .

Therefore that number has to be ascertained from time to time. There is a proviso that the number shall be not less than 85,000. From time to time the Parliament shall decide what number it shall divide the number of electors by in determining the number of members that shall be in the House of Representatives.

We are assuming now that this will mean an increase in the size of the House of Representatives. Whether it does in fact mean that or not will be decided by this or a subsequent Parliament from time to time when it makes such a division. Therefore whatever may be the intention, the purpose of this Bill need not of necessity bc to increase the number of members in the other House, lt could be to reduce the number of members in the other House. When the appropriate Bill comes before the Parliament for a decision as to what number the number of electors should be divided by. the Parliament may decide to divide by 125,000 instead of 85,000 and this could mean a reduction in the number of members in the other House. This Bill docs not of necessity mean that the ratio of two to one will be maintained or that there will bc a higher ratio. But if the Parliament so desired at the time they discussed further legislation on this subject it could bring the size of the other House down to a basis of equality with this chamber. The Bill makes provision for this. The title as it stands reads: ‘To alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased . . .’ While that may be. the intention - and every honourable senator knows it is the intention of the Government - this Bill will make it possible to reduce the number. We do not know at this stage what Parliament may decide when considering action under this legislation, k may be just as appropriate to say that the title means that the Bill is to alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Represenatives may be decreased below that ratio of two to one. The amendment alters the title to: ‘A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to remove the need to increase the number of senators whenever the number of members of the House of Representatives is increased.’ While I think this is an appropriate title to describe the intention of the Bill we have to look at the whole discussion on the basis of which we considered this question. We have discussed it on the basis that it was for the purpose of increasing, and that it is the intention of the Government to increase, the size of the other House. As explained by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) we have pledged our support to the Bill as printed on this occasion. While we are supporting it as presented some serious con- sideration needs to be given as to whether the title is appropriate.

Senator WHEELDON (Western Australia) (9.8 J - Whether or not this is a matter of some pedantry which has been raised by Senator Scott, it is appropriate that the Senate should look fairly carefully at the words of the proposed amendment. 1 would agree with the remarks of Senator Gair.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- Order! The honourable senator is out of order. He is not in his own seat.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I apologise, Mr Chairman. Now that 1 have moved to my scat I should like to say that as the question of the wording has been raised, we should look wilh some care at it. The wording of the Bill which has been passed in another place and has been forwarded to this chamber is quite appropriate to the situation which it envisages because it says that the purpose of the Bill is that it is for an Act ‘to alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the number of senators.’ The use of the words ‘without necessarily’ implies, I think, a general overall picture which is envisaged by the purposes of the Bill: that at some stage in the future the number of members of the House of Representatives will be increased without necessarily increasing the number of senators. But if one looks at the wording of the amendment moved by Senator Scott one finds that the whole position is not covered at all. The new title as proposed by Senator Scott reads:

A Bill for an Act to alter Hie Constitution so as lo Remove the Need to increase the Number of Senators whenever the Number of Members of the House of Representatives is increased.

Iii fact the Bill will not do this al all because, as Senator Cavanagh has pointed out, it will remove the need to increase or decrease the number of senators whenever the number of members in the House of Representatives is increased or decreased. Whereas the words ‘without necessarily’ in the original proposed title were quite apt, the present form of wording which is being proposed is quite inaccurate and sloppy. As this is a constitutional amendment which should cover all eventualities, it is something which should not be considered by the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– As we are still at the Committee stage and are dealing with the Bill as a whole, I want some clarification on proposed new section 24 (1) (3), which states:

The number of members so determined in respect of a State shall be the number ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the State by such number as is for the time being determined by the Parliament, being not less than eighty-five thousand and being the one number for all the States. 1 listened to the debate this evening and I was told that my understanding of this provision was not correct. Yet the Bill distinctly states that the number must not be less than 85,000.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and–

Dealing with the provision which has been under consideration here - the number of such members shall be, as nearly us practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The words ‘shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people’ imply, according to decisions which have been taken on similar words in the United States, that there shall be equality of representation or one vote one value. Those words may place a limitation on a variation from the number which has been selected.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– 1 thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). I have been searching for a paper on which was set out an answer to Senator Mattner’s question. 1 had a special answer prepared. I knew there was a difficulty in the honourable senator’s mind. The Leader of the Opposition has now covered the position. However, I thought I should make it known that I had gone to the trouble of getting an answer for the honourable senator.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The Opposition is committed to supporting the provisions of this Bill. However I contend that before the referendum is submitted to the people they need lo be quite clear about what is expected of them in the voting. I refer to the last paragraph of section 128 of the Constitution which states:

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law. 1 understand that some contradictory opinions have been expressed by legal advisers as to whether this means that the normal provisions relating to alterations of the Constitution apply- I understand there is a conflict as to whether all that is needed is for a majority of the voters in the Commonwealth and for a majority of the voters in a majority of the States to vote in favour of the alteration or whether a majority of the voters in each of the six Australian States will have to vote Yes for the referendum to be carried. I imagine that if the referendum is defeated in one or two Stales but carried in four or five there is likely to be litigation. 1 ask either the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) or the Minister for Science and Education (Senator Gorton), who represents the Attorney-General, to indicate to the Senate at this stage the views of the Government or to explain what is required to be done by the voters of Australia when voting at this referendum. The people of Australia are entitled to know what advice the Government has received. We support the proposal that is to be submitted to a referendum, but we believe that the people of Australia should be quite clear about what is required of them when they vote.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– This question was raised when similar legislation was before us on an earlier occasion. The answer I give ‘.o the honourable senator now is the answer that I gave on the earlier occasion. In the opinion of the Government, the last paragraph of section 128 does not apply.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 358

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ABORIGINALS) BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 March (vide page 236), on motion by Senator Henty:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This is another Bill which contains a proposal for an alteration to the Constitution. The Bill seeks a referendum on the omission of certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any State and also of the provision in the Constitution which requires that Aboriginals shall not be counted in reckoning the population. I understand that this Bill will receive the approval of all honourable senators. The Constitution contains certain provisions which restrict the powers of the Parliament to make laws in respect of Aboriginals. The restrictions are set out in section 51 of the Constitution, which contains the law-making powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The section provides:

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: -

The people of any race, other than the

Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:

It is provided that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall be able to make special laws in respect of the people of any race except the Aboriginal race. So even if the Parliament deemed it necessary to make special laws in regard to the Aboriginals it could not do so. It may be thought that the exclusion of the Aboriginal race is a favourable one and that the Aboriginals are to be treated as not being different from any other persons. But the simple fact is that they are different from other persons and that they do need special laws. They themselves believe that they need special laws. In this proposed law there is no suggestion of any intended discrimination in respect of Aboriginals except a discrimination in their favour. Much as the Parliament of New Zealand has discriminated in favour of its aboriginals, it is proposed that the Commonwealth should be able to invoke its law making powers whenever it is deemed necessary to make special laws in regard to Aboriginals, even in the area outside the Territories of the Commonwealth. This is a very worthy aim. The Opposition supports the Bill. We trust that the referendum will be carried by the people. We have no doubt that it will be.

However I should like to add a note of caution in dealing with this matter. This Parliament already has, in respect of the Territories of the Commonwealth, the power to pass any laws that it wishes to pass in relation to the Aboriginal people. It has that power in relation to the Northern Territory. It may be thought that because we are going to carry this referendum, as we all expect, the problems of the Aboriginals will be solved at last not only in the Northern Territory and the other Territories of the Commonwealth but also in the States, where so far the Commonwealth has had no direct legislative power in respect of Aboriginals. I must say that my observations of the way in which the Commonwealth has conducted itself in respect of the Aboriginals in its own Territories do not lead me to believe that the carrying of this referendum and the making of this alteration to the Constitution will solve the problems of the Aboriginals.

As has been mentioned before in this chamber, in the Northern Territory there is the disgraceful position that, although there are thousands of Aboriginal children of school age, not one has completed secondary schooling in all the history of the Territory, despite the fact that it has been under the control of the Commonwealth which has had legislative power in respect of it and the ability to provide for the administration and welfare of the Aboriginals. As at the last time I asked a question on this matter, which was twelve months or so ago, the number of Aboriginals attending secondary schools in the Northern Territory could be counted on the fingers of one hand with fingers to spare. This is a disgraceful administration in respect of the Aboriginals.

The Commonwealth is to blame as well as the States. I am not in a position to ascertain or to state the degree of blame that should be attached to either of these sovereign bodies - the Commonwealth on the one hand and the Stales on the other. But certainly they have nothing to be proud of in their treatment of the Aboriginals. Perhaps this determination to obtain the power to make special laws in respect of the Aboriginals is an indication that there is a change of heart on the part of the Commonwealth. We hope that this intention is carried out by deeds that will achieve the purpose.

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to make those special laws in regard to Aboriginals which we are now prevented from making. There may have been ways of dealing with this problem in respect of Aboriginals, even in the States, if wehad been so minded. Other sections of the Constitution have been used on many occasions in respect of matters on which the Commonwealth had no direct legislative power. Section 96 has been used in regard to all sorts of matters. It could have been used in regard to the people of the Aboriginal race. But apparently there was not such great concern for them as would cause the Commonwealth to use that power or to seek to use other powers.

The other provision that we seek to alter is section 127 of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.

In modern times this section has been regarded. J think rightly, as being offensive to the Aboriginal people and to the people of the Commonwealth generally. It means that some of us Australians are not to be counted as people of the Commonwealth. For our own satisfaction as well as for the sake of our appearance in the eyes of the world, we are glad to see that steps are being taken to enable the people, by referendum, to delete this provision from the Constitution. We wholeheartedly support this Bill. We trust and are confident that the people of Australia will overwhelmingly support the referendum and alter the Constitution as provided for in the Bill.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– I rise to support this Bill, which is a belated endeavour to correct a grave injustice that has existed in our Constitution for some years. The Governments of this country have not done themselves any credit in waiting until 1967 to make this correction to enable the people of the Aboriginal race lo be taken into account when calculating the population of Australia and to provide thai the Commonwealth shall legislate for them in common with the other people of Australia. What explanation do governments have for having neglected to correct this injustice over the years? Yesterday and today we have heard a lot about the need to amend the Constitution because of its agc and the need to bring it up to date. Governments have come and gone and constitutional review committees have been established; yet only now have we decided to submit to the people a referendum to make this correction. I have no doubt that the people of Australia, being fair and just and being appreciative of the people of the Aboriginal race, will vote solidly for the amendment of the Constitution to permit these people to be counted and also to permit the Commonwealth Government to legislate for them.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– 1 wish to be heard briefly in support of this Bill. I believe that it is an important one and that its passage and the carrying of the referendum will remove a blot on the fair name of Australia. Section 127 of the Constitution has often been thought of as implying some discrimination against the Aboriginal people. The Joint Committee on

Constitutional Review considered this question and came to the conclusion that the section was not in itself in violation of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the General Assembly of the United Nations, but that its repeal would be consistent with the objectives of the Declaration and would receive international approbation. The Committee drew attention to the fact that the existence of Section 127 was likely to be misconstrued abroad. The time is long past when the Parliament should have moved for an amendment of the Constitution by the removal of this section. 1 am very pleased to see that the Government has moved on the matter and that the issue will be submitted to the people for decision. I am confident that the voters will declare against any racial discrimination because I believe that basically the people of Australia are against any kind of discrimination on the ground of race, religion, creed or anything else that may distinguish some persons from others.

The amendment of section 51 by removing the proviso that special laws may be passed for people of any race other than the Aboriginal race would take an alibi away from the Commonwealth Government. The history of dealings with the Aboriginal population over the years will show that too often the easy way out has been the claim that the Commonwealth had no power to legislate wtih respect to Aboriginals. The Government has now seen fit to move in this matter and I compliment it on moving ahead of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review. In 1959 when the second report of the Committee was made, the Committee had not yet completed its consideration of this issue and so had not made any recommendations. Since then, opinion from many humanitarian groups in the community and from the enlightened section of Australians has led irresistibly to the solution that is offered by the Bill. When the inhibition is removed, the way will be clear for a proper approach to the problem of the Aboriginal people.

I join with my Leader, Senator Murphy, in voicing a word of caution. This will not remove the problem automatically and ensure fair and just treatment for the Aboriginal people; but it will remove any legal inhibitions, lt will mean that when policies have the support of the people they can be enacted without any fear that the Commonwealth Parliament has no power to pass the appropriate Jaws.

In conclusion I want to refer briefly to the policy of the Australian Labor Party in relation to Aboriginals. It will then be clear why we wholeheartedly support the proposal for a referendum. The Federal Platform, Constitution and Rules of the Australian Labor Party declare:

The welfare of the Australian Aborigine race shall be a Commonwealth responsibility subject to constitutional power being granted or referred to the Commonwealth, such power being concurrent with that of the States.

From this it will be readily apparent why we approve so unreservedly of the action that is now being taken by the Government. Our platform provides further:

The policy shall be directed towards progressively establishing thefollowing principles:

Equal citizenship rights with other Australians, including equal rights to Social Services and Health Benefits.

The establishment of a standard of living no lower than that of other Australians.

All Aborigines to receive the standard rate of wages for the job, and to receive the same industrial protection as other Australians.

Education for detribalised Aborigines to be free and compulsory, with special provision to be made for tribal and nomadic people. Adult education to be fully available.

(i) Aboriginal reserves which are extensive areas, including tribal lands, to be retained and developed with titles to the land held by Aborigines;

residential reserves, including those near towns, to have adequate housing standards and water supplies.

The establishment of a Standing Parliamentary Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to examine continually the effective implementation of this policy.

We look forward to some or all of these principles being implemented in the not too distant future once the constitutional path is clear. We have these things in mind. Although they might not command universal acceptance, they are broadly in the main stream of Australian thought on the matter and in the fullness of time - near fullness, we hope - they may be realised. Having these things in mind as proper matters for the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate upon, we endorse the principles of the Bill and look forward to its speedy passage and approval by the Australian people.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

. -I support the proposal that the Constitution should be altered to allow the Aboriginals as a race to be counted in reckoning the population of Australia. I have listened to the enunciation of the policy of the Australian Labor Party on Aboriginals. Senator Cohen has stated what a Labor government would do for the Aboriginals. The present Government has paid particular attention to the development of the Aboriginal race. It is interesting to note that the Government has given a vote to the Aboriginals in the Northern Territory and in some if not all the States. The Government provides for Aboriginals social services which are in many cases equal to those provided for other Australians. There has been a marked uplift in the living standards of the Aboriginals over the past ten or fifteen years. It is pleasing to note that if by any chance the Opposition became the Government it would pay the same attention to thisproblem as has been paid by the present Government over the past decade. I support the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from Committee without amendment; report adopted.

page 361

QUESTION

CALL OF THE SENATE

(The bells having been rung)

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Order! I have to inform honourable senators that their names will be called alphabetically by the Clerk. I request them to answer to their names. (Senate called by the Clerk)

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have to inform the Senate that all senators with the exception of Senators Bull, McManus, Poke and Tangney have answered to their names. I direct that the names of those who have not answered be called again. (The Clerk called the names of those senators not answering to their names)

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that telegrams have been received from Senators Bull, McManus and Tangney, advising that because of illness they have been unable to attend.

Senator MURPHY:

– As to the absence of Senator Poke I explain that he is absent on account of: illness in his family.

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to:

That in view of the fact that Senators Bull. McManus and Tangney cannot attend because of illness and that Senator Poke is absent because of illness in his family, the said senators be excused for failing to answer the call of the Senate.

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Henty) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– Because of some of the statements made in the course of the debate by those who are supporting this Bill 1 feel compelled to say a few words in reply. First, 1 take strong exception to the statement by Senator Henty that anyone who opposes this Bill in this Parliament is not a true democrat. 1 should like to ask, Mr President: have we as senators representing the people of this country not the right to oppose a referendum bill if we believe that it is badly motivated in the first instance, that it is unnecessary and that it is putting the taxpayers of this country to unnecessary expense? Have we not the right, without being termed not true democrats, to exercise our rights as representatives of the people? I say that anyone who votes against his conscience in this Parliament on this matter, or on any other for that matter, is not a true democrat, and I feel with some justification that there are people who have participated in the discussion on this matter, which is of the highest importance, and who have voted for it, who do not for one moment believe in its purpose or its principles. Senator Henty also said that for the first time there is to be included in the Constitution a restriction on increases. There is no limit at all on the increases and to say that there is is misrepresentation. The nexus has certainly placed very successfully since Federation a limit on the numbers in both Houses of Parliament. It has proved to be the best brake on unwarranted increases, but if the referendum were to be carried and the nexus broken, the government of the day would be in a position to increase the number of members provided thatthe quota of 85,000 people - as distinct from electors - were kept as a minimum.

– Some honourable senators may have done so. I do not represent myself as a puritan, but the fact remains that we do not acknowledge that we have thrown away the Ten Commandments even though they were given to us centuries ago. There are many things we do not throw overboard because of their age. Senator Cormack is attempting to interject. I might come to him later, if time permits.

I wish to refer now to the remarks of Senator McKenna. He expressed disappointment - if I might use that word rather than resentment’ - because certain honourable senators had quoted extracts from a speech he made in 1948. Among those who did so was myself. He suggested thatit was unfair that we did not quote his speech of 1958. 1 submit that the circumstances of 1948 are parallel to the circumstances we arc debating tonight. There was then a proposal to increase the numerical strength of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Government of the day was being pressed by the then Mr Menzies, Leader of the Opposition at that time, and by Mr Holt, who is now Prime Minister. The Government was being urged to break the nexus. Is it not appropriate that wc should accept that occasion as being parallel to the present situation and that we should quote Senator McKenna’s remarks of that time? 1 believe that the statements made at that time by Senator McKenna and Mr Beazley, the honourable member for Fremantle, are worth quoting. The people of Australia should know just what was in the minds of the leading members of the Government of that rime when it was proposed to increase the number of members of the Federal Parliament. I cannot agree that we were being unfair in that connection. This evening Senator McKenna failed to explain to the Senate why he changed his altitude between 1948 and 1958. Is the explanation contained in the fact that in 1948 he was a responsible Minister in the Cabinet of the day and that in 1958 he had ceased to be a Minister? Did he see the position through different eyes, or what is the explanation? In 1948 Senator McKenna said: it would be completely futile for the Parliament to go to the people with the suggestion that there should not be a proportionate increase in the membership of the Senate. The people would never, in any circumstances, weaken the position of the Senate in the Federal Legislature.

Dr Evatt, since dead, spoke on the matter at that time. On 28th April 1948 Mr Beazley said: r have no doubt that those smaller States would resist any proposal for the enlargement of the Parliament that failed to preserve the present relative strength of the Senate and the House of Representatives, in which the larger States, owing to the operation of a democratic system of election, have so many more representatives than the smaller States … the proportion ot senators to members of the House of Representatives is not merely a mathematical question the existing arrangement was designed to protect the interests of the minor States.

Could anything be clearer than that?

Senator O’Byrne:

– Who said that?

Senator GAIR:

– Mr Kim Beazley, the Labor member for Fremantle. He will have a lot of trouble. He was not on the Constitutional Review Committee. If he has changed his mind he will have to explain to the electors just what he means. There is no attempt on my part, nor, I am sure, o.a the part of any other honourable senator, te* be unfair to Senator McKenna but he does not deny, and he cannot deny, that the words I have read were uttered by him on that occasion. Having said them, he must explain why he made a different statement in 1958.

– No. He says what he wants to say so pleasantly.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wedgwood) - Order! The honourable senator should address the chair.

Senator GAIR:

– Let us pass on to the question of the effect of the breaking of the nexus. Many speakers have said that the prestige, influence, power, and standing of the Senate will not be weakened in the event of the strength of the House of Representatives being greatly added to without any alteration being made to the Senate strength. 1 find great difficulty in accepting that view because it stands to reason that if the strength of the House of Representatives is increased to any great extent, the strength of the senate must proportionately be reduced. I am supported in this contention by some of the authorities on the Constitution. It is very interesting to note that in the course of a debate on the Constitution this statement was made:

I would ask honourable members to compare the colony of New South Wales with Great Britain. If Great Britain had the same representation in the House of Commons in proportion to its population as New South Wales has in its Legislative Assembly, it would have over 6,000 members.

Senator Wright:

– What date was that?

Senator GAIR:

– The statement was made on 13t.h September 1897. That is a very interesting extract. But the important extract to which I wish to refer comes from a speech by the Honourable R. E. O’Connor. In speaking about the proportion between the number of members of the Senate and the number of members of the House of Representatives he said:

In the deliberations of these two bodies there can be no question that the weight attached to the smaller house would be correspondingly less than when it bore a larger proportion to the more numerous house. 1 think that is sound and logical and I agree with it. With all due respect, if the strength of the Senate is weakened by comparison with that of the House of Representatives, our prestige and influence must be correspondingly weakened. The Honourable R. E. O’Connor also said: we ought to be very careful to frankly and honestly carry out that principle all through in our dealings with the Senate. If it is to be a house representing the States, and if it is to be made effective for certain purposes, we ought to be very careful that we leave no germ of inoperation in the Constitution itself which will gradually sap the power and the vitality of that body.

I have many extracts which confirm and support the contention that I have expressed regarding this Bill.

I do not want to delay the Senate’s deliberations any further than is necessary. As a member of the Senate I have exercised my right to express my view on this matter. I will always accept the privilege and the opportunity to say what I think on matters that come before the Senate. I do not believe that I am undemocratic because I elect to oppose this measure. Surely no-one other than a person who expected support on everything and believed that he was always right would think I was being undemocratic. I claim to be as democratic as anybody else in this country. I recognise and appreciate my rights as an elected representative of the people and will jealously guard them.

In conclusion, I hope that in the presentation of the case in support of this part of the referendum proposals the Government will submit the case in an honest, open, fair and frank manner. I hope that the question which is put on the ballot paper will not be similar to that which was put on the ballot, paper under the Military Service Referendum Act 1916. That question was:

Are you in favour of the Government, having in this grave emergency, the same compulsory powers over citizens in regard to requiring their military service, for the term of this War, outside the Commonwealth, as it now has in regard to military service within the Commonwealth?

Without doubt, that was an invitation to the people to vote Yes. I hope that the question is framed in a fair manner so that the people will know what they are voting for or against.

Senator Webster:

– The question has to be framed in accordance with the title of the Bill.

Senator GAIR:

– I do not want to go into that matter again because it was dealt with at the Committee stage, but a belated attempt was made tonight to do something similar to that which I have just mentioned. It is like the question, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ Whether a man answers Yes or No he is in the wrong. I hope that the question will be framed and put to the people in a fair manner. If this Government is so conscientious, zealous and democratic as to seek the opinion of the Australian electors on this most important question, let it be consistent and put it to them in a fair and decent manner. If the Government doe’s that, I have no doubt of the result. I believe that I am close to the Australian people. I know their attitude to their parliaments and parliamentarians. The people have the greatest regard and respect for those who do their jobs, but they believe that there is a sufficient number of parliamentarians, both State and Federal, to discharge the work of parliament. I believe that because the people are of that mind they will vote overwhelmingly against the proposal to increase the strength of the House of Representatives.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– 1 want to comment briefly on one or two remarks which have fallen from Senator Gair’s lips. The honourable senator took Senator Henty to task because he expressed the view that Senator Gair was being undemocratic in this matter. Senator Gair appeared to take Senator Henty’s comments to mean that he was being undemocratic because he opposed the proposal that is to be submitted to referendum. Senator Henty did not say anything of the kind. It is open to anybody to oppose the proposal. What Senator Henty was indicating was that Senator Gair was casting his vote on this measure so as to ensure that the people would not be able to cast their vote on the proposal - in other words, that he was casting a vote against giving the people an opportunity to decide whether they agree with him or not. If one is prepared to cast a vote on a great constitutional matter of this kind in an effort to ensure that a certain proposal should not go before the people for their decision, then it is not unreasonable for somebody else to express the opinion that that is an undemocratic point of view to adopt. In spite of what Senator Gair has said, if the referendum is carried there will be 3 definite upper limit on the number of members who may sit in the House of Representatives. At the present time there is no such limit.

I come to the honourable senator’s remarks about myself. If I pointed out to the honourable senator that during the Convention debates a large number of distinguished people disagreed with the authorities whom he quoted; if when he asked us to take note of Quick and Garran I pointed out that it might be as well to take note of the fact that Quick voted against the nexus; and if I displayed an air of discovery, let me explain that it was not through a feeling of having discovered facts that are there for all to see but perhaps through having discovered that they had not been brought up by Senator Gair himself when he was quoting opinions that supported his case. I would not like to have gone away - I am sure the same is true of the honourable senator - with only one side of the case put forward by the founding fathers having been presented to us. 1 hope I was doing the honourable senator a service by pointing out that very distinguished people had expressed a quite different point of view. 1 do not wish to traverse the great number of matters that were raised by Senator Gair, lt is for Senator McKenna to speak for himself, but 1 thought that he gave a perfect explanation of his attitude. There is one thing which in all fairness I think I should say. Senator Gair indicated that this proposal must have sprung from some political motive; that it must have sprung from some quarrel. If he has any fairness in him, the honourable senator must admit that included in the membership of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, which considered this matter, were members of the Opposition of that time and of the present time. It cannot be argued that the Labor members on that Committee, of whom Senator McKenna was one, were in any way influenced by any question of redistribution at that time or by any of the considerations which Senator Gair, without doubt quite wrongly, has put forward.

Senator Gair:

– Why did not the Government give immediate effect to the recommendations of the Committee?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable senator might answer this question: Why does he suggest that the considerations he has put forward could have influenced Senator McKenna and his colleagues in the circumstances which prevailed then and which still prevail? There is only one other matter that I wish to touch upon. 1 refer to Senator Gair’s hope that this question will be put before the people fairly. As far as I am concerned, it will be put fairly. But I have grave doubts about whether it will be put fairly by those who arc preparing the No case.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Steady on.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I have grave doubts about whether it will be put fairly. Those doubts arise from the statements that have been made in this House by those who are opposing the proposal. The only fair way in which it can be put to the people is to ask them: ‘Do you want to have more senators every time the size of the House of Representatives is increased? If you want to have more senators, you will vote No and retain the nexus. If you do not want to have more senators every time the House of Representatives is increased, you will vote Yes and break the nexus.’ That is exactly what this referendum is about. That is how I hope it will be put to the people by all who are in favour of it. It is quite unfair to suggest that the referendum will have anything to do with increasing the size of the House of Representatives. The size of that House can be increased at any time irrespective of what happens at the referendum. But if the referendum is defeated, the Senate cannot be kept at its present size. If the referendum is beaten, there will be more senators. If the size of the House of Representatives is increased - and it will be - there will be more politicians. The question the people must answer is not ‘Do you want more politicians?’ but Do you want more senators every time the size of the House of Representatives is increased?’ That is the fair way of putting it. That is the way in which I hope we all will put this proposal to the people.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It is quite obvious from the concluding remarks of the Minister for Education and Science (Senator Gorton) that he means to rubbish the Senate as much as possible in the presentation of this proposal that his colleagues in the House of Representatives have persuaded him to adopt. Much was made by the Minister about the distinguished gentlemen at the Convention debates who voted in favour of the removal of the nexus. The Senate will note that Victoria predominated in that voting. The voting was as follows:

It will be noted that in Victoria and New South Wales a majority voted in favour of the removal of the nexus but that in each of the other States a majority voted against the proposal.

Senator Morris:

– The honourable senator did not give the Queensland figure.

Senator WRIGHT:

– There were no Queensland representatives at that Convention. I wish to refer to the comments of Senator McKenna who I thought assumed a pained expression of complaint about hearing his words of another era brought back to his mind. I am not concerned to repeat what Senator Gair said in quoting what Senator McKenna said in 1948. I shall read from the report presented by Senator McKenna and his colleagues in 1950. This was the report of the Select Committee appointed to consider and report upon the Constitution Alteration (Avoidance of Double Dissolution Deadlocks) Bill. Paragraph 179 of that report dealt with the merits of a ratio of numerical strength of the two Houses and stated:

The merit of the two-to-one ratio is in its incidence on section 57 of the Constitution dealing with disagreements between the Houses. It gives to the Senate, at a joint sitting of the Houses, a relatively effective and influential role, although the House of Representatives commands the preponderating vote. While section 57 of the Constitution remains in its present form, or while provision is made in the Constitution for joint sittings to settle disagreements by joint vote of the Houses, the committee does not recommend any change in the two-to-one ratio.

So it is idle for Senator McKenna to complain about that point of view. Anybody who is invited by him to accept a point of view to the contrary formed, as he explained, in discussions of the Constitutional Review Committee and brought to the public notice in 1958, should know that the Select Committee, whose report I have quoted from, was constituted wholly by Senate Opposition members, the Government abstaining from appointing members thereto. Senator McKenna at that time went out of his way to say that the two-to-one ratio should be retained. 1 would not take time to recount these individual opinions were it not for the fact that my leaders have adopted Senator McKenna as an exponent of what should be achieved. One of them actually went so far as to repeat what Senator McKenna said. Senator McKenna said that this Bill - the second reading of which has been passed and the third reading of which the Senate is about to pass - is only one step of those advocated by him in his 1958 version, and that it is integrated with all the other propositions contained in a majority report of the Constitutional Review Committee - a report from which I had the honour to dissent. In other words, this is the first step on to the toboggan. What will be the next? The next proposal of the Committee was to substitute a new section for section 57 of the Constitution. The plain unvarnished proposal is that without any double dissolution - without these fervent democrats going to the people at all on the subject - when the Houses arc in deadlock, under the McKenna plan and the Constitutional Review Committee plan the Governor-General may, after an interval which I will state, call a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament to decide the deadlock by numerical majority.

Senator Gair and other honourable senators have mentioned projected population increases to the end of this century. By then, if these proposals are given effect to, the House of Representatives will have 290 votes and the Senate 60 votes. That is to say, wc will be reducing this elected chamber - directly elected by the people - to a farce more fatuous than the House of Lords itself, despite the fact that the House of Lords has been prostituted only twice, once in 191 1 and once in 1949, these occasions being brought on by abuses which it provoked and which I shall not recount in this chamber now. If the proposals of which Senator McKenna says this one is but a unit of a pattern were given effect to, the Senate would have power to delay a money Bill for thirty days and other Bills for four months. Yet the House of Lords has power to delay a money Bill for a month and other Bills for twelve months. That was the position until last year, but 1 do not know what the position is as a result of the recent deliberations. It is a sad day when honourable senators can take their places in an institution and be prepared, with deliberate warning, to prostitute that institution to such a degree of subordination to another place.

We are said not to be democrats because we, sitting here in the Parliament, exercise our vote according to our judgment and say that, in our view, having regard to the interests of the people it is imprudent and improper to submit the public purse to the expenditure that is involved in the miserable question posed in this Bill. In regard to faithfulness to democracy, I point out that the Parliament constituted a Joint Committee on Constitutional Review which operated for three years and brought down a report that contained a unanimous recommendation that there should be amendments to (he Constitution in regard to such matters as nuclear energy, aviation, navigation, company law and restrictive trade practices. The people who preen themselves and pretend to be democrats tonight are people who have not yet initiated a proposal to submit those matters to the people for decision one way or the other.

The very basis upon which opposition to the morion for the third reading of this Bill is poised is that it is really using constitutional processes to achieve party political purposes and that it is putting an insignificant question before the people when overwhelming national questions call for important and earnest review of (he Constitution. It is a satire on the smallness of the perspective of governments that we can be allowed to occupy our time with such insignificance in the midst of these national challenges.

Finally, 1 refer to the opening gambit of my Leader, Senator Henty. When he opened his speech at 8 o’clock tonight he said: ‘By the year 2000 we will have 290 members in the House of Representatives, and if this Bill is not passed the only alternative will be to have 145 senators as well as the 290 members of the House of Representatives’. One can see how the ungovernable urge to have a government conclusion agreed to is carried to any degree of absurdity. Did it ever occur to any democrat who would mould a Parliament suitable to the population it is presumed Australia will have in the year 2000 that, instead of having 60 senators and 290 members of the House of Representatives, the Parliament might better be served by having, say, 115 senators and 230 members of the House of Representatives?

Debate interrupted.

page 370

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 370

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIGHT:

– So, it would seem to me, if numbers are thought to be the answer, that we can provide for better representation ever so much better by giving a proportionate increase to each House of Parliament rather than by magnifying one House immeasurably and dwarfing the other House to insignificance. These are the principles upon which 1 still plead that the decision should be taken. If those principles are given proper, balanced, democratic consideration they will require the rejection of this measure.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– I wish to make only a few observations at this stage of the Bill. I wish to put before the Senate some facts regarding the cost of increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives. It is a surprising fact that the cost per head of our population of maintaining the whole of the Commonwealth Parliament with all its members and its Ministers and their facilities is Sic per annum. The cost of adding twenty new members to the House of Representatives would represent an additional Se per annum per head of population. These are surprising figures. I mention them to indicate how small the content of the matter is that is in contemplation and that has been engaging the attention of this Senate for far too long.

Having regard to that fact and the other factor that the nexus is primarily for the purpose of ensuring that the Senate is not swamped at joint sittings of the Parliament, and having regard also to the fact that a joint sitting has never been held and is never likely to be held, one cannot help but see this matter in its proper perspective as a very small subject indeed that is being surrounded with a great deal of confusion and misconception in the hope that the people will be mislead into acting against their best interests. I hope that they will not.

I wish to document what I have said regarding costs so that any member of the Senate may check it. At pages 7 and 9 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) .1966-67 the total cost of the Parliament appears. The cost amounts to $3,664,000. This cost covers the salaries of the staff and officers of the Senate, the staff and officers of the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, the Library, the Joint House Department, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the conveyance of members of Parliament and others, and the maintenance of Ministers’ and members’ rooms.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Does it include the cost of VIP planes?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, not at this stage, but even if that cost were included in the normal cost of Parliament we would find that it was very insignificant in the total. I refer the Senate now to page 15 of a document entitled ‘Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure’ where the salaries of members are recorded together with contributions to the retiring allowance and sundry other benefits. This totals $1,996,100. Then if we consider the provision for ministerial salaries at page 15 of the same document the item ‘Ministers of State, salaries and allowances’ provides for the payment of $277,900. Those three items total $5,938,000. If that figure is divided by the latest total of our population - 11,500,000- the answer is 51c. That is the cost of running the whole of the Parliament in those categories. It is 5s. or 51c a head of population. I repeat that if twenty new members were appointed on that basis it would represent a cost per head to the population of 6d. or 5c per annum.

Senator Wright:

– What would be the cost of an extra six senators?

Senator McKENNA:

– It would be relative to that figure. The whole thing is insignificant from the national viewpoint. Some honourable senators have been talking about the proposed increase in the Parliament as though it were a matter of the utmost cost and threatened ruination almost to the nation. I want to put it in its proper perspective.

Secondly, I would like those who did not hear what I said this afternoon to look at what I said about the remote contingency that there will be a joint sitting of the two Houses at which the Senate will need to be protected. Senator Gorton rather answered for me in relation to some of the matters raised by Senator Gair. He invited me to give the reasons for what he claimed was my change in viewpoint. I spent a great deal of time this afternoon in the second reading debate showing that I had not changed in my devotion to the principle that the Senate should be protected against being swamped by members of the House of Representatives in any joint sitting if one were ever held. 1 made that completely plain. Senator Gorton was good enough to indicate that I had clearly set out my position. 1 repeal now (hat I have made no change in or variation from my adherence to the principle. 1 merely indicate that I think it reasonable and fair to tell those who question me in relation to the breaking of the nexus in the conditions of 1948 that if the same conditions were present, today I would repeat every word I said then. They should also state what I said when with the aid of experience of the working of the proportional representation scheme and with the aid of discusssions and study with my colleagues of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, we found a better way to protect the Senate than this stupid, absurd, clumsy ratio of two to one. The simple device was that we required of a joint sitting not only that there be an absolute majority of all members of the Parliament present but that there should be at least one-half of all members in at. least one half of the States. While at present that means three States, I invite the Senate to consider that there are strong new State movements in Queensland and New South Wales and it may be that one of these days there will be seven States.

Senator Prowse:

– What safeguard is there for the Senate in the present legislation?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is not there now and I conceded that quite frankly this afternoon. I deplored the fact that the Government had not gone along with all the pro posals of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review and had not adopted our recommendation on section 57 of the Constitution for the resolution of deadlocks between the two chambers. Had it done that it would have picked up a proposal designed to protect the Senate. Now that the Government is at last addressing its mind to the reforms suggested, I entertain the hope that it will in the near future include such a matter in a referendum to the people. That could appropriately be done at the next Senate election. There is no mistaking where the Australian Labor Parly, and I with it, stand in relation to protecting the Senate at a joint sitting. On the question of the political considerations that Senator Gair sees swarming around, Senator Gorton supplemented the answer that 1 gave this afternoon for my Party and myself. The base of the Bill we now have before us was decided in the years up to 1958 and 1 959. At that stage the question of redistribution was simply not. on the tapis, and this concept was apparent entirely without reference to any redistribution problems. My only comment in that field is that it is completely clear that additions to the numbers of senators from each State would be very much to the political advantage of members of the Party that Senator Gair represents. That is completely unquestionable.

Senator Gair:

– We are opposed to any increase in the Senate just as strongly as v/e are opposed to any increase in the House of Representatives.

Senator McKENNA:

– What did the Lord say - ‘A house divided against itself shall fill’ ? I. invite the honourable senator’s attention to that saying. The one hope of progress for his Party, 1 would say, is that larger numbers of members be elected in each State. So I commend to him the thought that a house divided against itself shall fall, when he makes a statement such as he did just now. One can understand in those circumstances the warmth and vigour with which he contends for increases in the size of this chamber proportionate to those that are made at any time in the House of Representatives.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Australian Labor Party supports the Bill and will advocate an affirmative vote at the referendum. However, in view of what has been said by the Government during the course of this debate about proposals to increase the size of the House of Representatives and the size of the Senate in the event of the referendum being defeated, it should be clearly understood that, if the referendum is defeated,we of the Australian Labor Party are not committed to support an increase of the Senate by twentyfour and the House of Representatives by forty-eight. We are not committed to any multiple or fraction of those increases, or to any increase at all. The proposals emanated from the Government.

Question put:

Thatthe Bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 45

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 38

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

– There being fortyfive Ayes and seven Noes, the question is resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority of the Senate as required by the Constitution.

Bill read a third time.

page 372

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ABORIGINALS) BILL 1967

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Henty) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! As this is a Bill to amend the Constitution, the provisions of section . 128 of the Constitution must be observed. I therefore direct that the bells be rung. (The bells having been rung)

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question is: ‘That the Bill be now read a third time’. Those in favour say ‘Aye’, to the contrary ‘No’. As there is no dissentient voice, I declare in favour of the ‘Ayes’. A division has not been called for. but it is desirable that the names of those senators present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded. I therefore appoint Senator Scott and Senator O’Byrne as tellers. (The following names were then recorded)

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! As fifty-two senators have agreed to the third reading,

I certify that the third reading has been agreed to by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 11.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 March 1967, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1967/19670308_senate_26_s33/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 March 1967

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator DITTMER:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DITTMER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DITTMER:

Senator McKELLAR:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

LODER COMMITTEE REPORT

Senator CAVANAGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH EXPENDITURE

Senator TURNBULL:TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator WHEELDON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, RIVERINA

Senator FITZGERALD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Senator LAWRIE:QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

CANBERRA AIRPORT

Senator DEVITT:TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator LAUGHT:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY QUOTAS

Senator COHEN:VICTORIA

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator WEBSTER:VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

GRASSES

Senator CANT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MCKELLAR:CP

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:QUEENSLAND

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator TURNBULL:TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MARRIOTT:TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Senator GORTON:Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

Senator CAVANAGH:South Australia

HOUSE COMMITTEE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967

Second Reading

Senate
8 March 1967

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator WOOD:
Queensland