*  r

A D D R E S S  TO T H E  N A T I O N ,

BY T H E  P R I M E  M I N I S T E R ,

MR, E.G, W H I T L A M ,  Q,C,, M . P,,

S U N D A Y ,  16 F E B R U A R Y  1 9 7 5

I want to speak tonight.about some distrubing  developments in Australia's parliamentary system which  I am bound to say post as werious a threat to its  strenght and stability as we have ever encountered in  our history. It's time to stop the rot. And that can really  be done only by the Australian people

Let me begin by stating a very general principle  about the working of our democracy.  Our system depends very  heavily on custom,  tradition,  the unwritten rules of the  game.  True,  we have a written Constitution but the  Constitution itself is silent on many of the most important

and fundamental aspects of the working of our democracy. The Constitution says nothing about rule by popular majority. It says nothing about political parties.  It says nothing qbout  freedom of speech. Yet these are basic to how we govern  ourselves.  The basis of our system - the rule of law - is  common consent and commonsense. In the ultimate,  these ape

the only guarantees against the fule of force.

When violence is done to an improtant convention,   a well-established custom,  then violence is done to  democracy itself.

Last April,  we had the unprecedented attempt by the  Opposition in the Senate to refuse Supply to the elected  Government - that is, to deny the Government the money  it needs to carry out its duties.  At the election which

followed,  you were able to pass judgement on this action. You re-elected my Government for a further 3 years and  repudiated the action of the Opposition in the Senate. That should have been the end of the matter. Yet almost

from the time the numbers went up, the Opposition has made no  secret of its intention to repeat the exercise if it can,   whenever it can. It confronts Australia with the prospect of  6-monthly national elections - an impossible basis for

sound effective government.

This is a generalised threat to set aside the verdict  you recorded only last May.  Now,  only last week, we have a  clear specific threat to set aside a clear specific decision  made by the people of New South Wales.

In May, the people of the largest State voted in favour  of the Government team of the Senate candidates by a majority  of 50% as against 41.7% of the votes for the Opposition  candidates.

_____/2

- 2-

The Senator who headed the successful Senate team,  Senator  L.K. Murphy Q.C., has now been appointed a Justice of the  High Court,  the sixth Australian Attorney-General to be made  a judge by the Australian GovernmentÃ¢ÂÂ- Mr. Justice  Higgins, Mr. Justice Isaacs,  Chief Justice Latham, Chief Judge

Spicer and Chief Justice Berwick;  Incidentally,  so far  this century 12 English Attorney-General -have been appointed  Lords Chancellor,  Lords Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of  Appeal. t

This is the 26th casual bacancy in the Senate  since proportional representation was introduced in 1949. Hitherto the States have filled every vacancy with a  Senator who belongs to the smae political party as his  predecessor. In 10 of the 25 cases the new Senator for the  State was a political opponent of the government of the State.

The first casual vacancy was caused by the death of a  Labor senator for Western Australia in 1951. The Liberal  Premier of Western Australia, after consulting the Liberal  Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies and the other Premiers,  sponsored a  Labor nictn to replace him. This practice has sence been scrupulously

followed in every State by every Premier, Liberal,  Labor and  Country Party. -

In 1959 the Constitutional Review Committee, composed of  8 M.H.R.s and 4 Senators,  6 of them Labor, 4 Liberal and  2 Country Party, recorded that they were all strongly of the  view that, if the Senator for a State whose place has become vacant  was a member of a political party,  the Parliament of the vt

State or the Governor of the State should be required, in  filling the vacancy, to choose a person who was a member of  the same political party as the vacating senator.

Last Thursday the Senate unanimously carried this  resolution:

The Senate commends to the Parliaments of all  .the States the practice which has prevailed since 1949 whereby  the States, when casual vacancies have occured, have  chosen a. Senator from the same political party as the

senator who died or resigned.

This a good and very proper rule - good in principle  and sound in practice. Yet now the Premier of Ne w South  Wales proposed to scrap it. But it's not just a  convention,  a custom he's throwing on the scrap-heap; it's the  wishes of the people of New South Wales, recorded only 9  months ago.

The New South Wales proposal would make the senate  as a whole even less representative of the opinion of the  electors recorded in May.  Instead of a Senate elected with  Twenty-nine Labor senators, twenty-nine Liberal and  Country Party senators and two Independent senators there would

be only twenty-eight Labor senators.

. . . /3

- 3-

I believe Australians of all political persuasions  should be deeply concerned about these events - and should  express their concern. Certainly the voters of New South  Wales who are about to be defrauded of their proper repÂ­  resentation have very right to be aggrieved. But it's not  only the majority who voted Labor who should feel

incensed.  I've always believed Liberal supporters have a  deep commitment to the proper workings of the Parliamentary  system. Certainly any other commitment should be 1   unthinkable for the party founded and led by Sir Robert  Menzies.  It is to all those thus committed that I make my appeal

to express in whatever way you can to your mem srs of  Parliament to ensure that our parliamentary system shall be  given a chance to work.

I've mentioned to you many times over the past  year the unprecedented stresses that democracies and  parliaments everywhere are now experiencing. The real  difficulties are great enough without deliberate sabotage.

I leave you with this very earnest question: If men in  positions of power feel free to break the rules with '

impunity, how long will those who feel disadvantaged or &y deprived or denied of power play to the rules?

