Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too would like to make a contribution to taking note of the answer by Senator Brandis to Senator Farrell's question. The question was fairly clear: whose recollection was correct, or did the Prime Minister make a commitment to funding the respective sides? Senator Brandis has said, 'Well, it wouldn't be the first time that someone's come away from a meeting with a different recollection'. But, truly, who is correct—the bishop or the Prime Minister of Australia? I do not think a question gets any clearer than that, and it probably deserved a more concise and straightforward answer. My position in this debate is on the public record.

I have listened very carefully to the debate on this plebiscite issue and I am persuaded by the Hon. Michael Kirby, who made a prescient contribution in respect of this debate in a recent interview. He said:

The constitution doesn't provide for interposing this additional step in the law-making process. The last time we tried it was in 1916, 100 years ago, on the question of overseas compulsory military service. And we haven't really attempted a plebiscite as an interposition for 100 years.

He comes to that position as a juror, as a lawyer and as a judge. He said further:

We are not a populist democracy and we don't elect our prime minister or a president. We are a representative democracy who does things through an elected legislature, which meets in public session, whose record is kept by the Hansard, whose speeches are recorded, whose votes are recorded. That's the way we've done it for 110 years—

'And we really should do it this time.' I am persuaded by that argument. There has been an election. There is a government in place, and it should govern. It should take on that decision-making authority that it has and proceed. A plebiscite at a cost of $160 million, with equal funding for either side to add to that, would seem a little excessive to most of the hardworking taxpayers and the electors of this country. The really interesting thing is that the Westminster system provides for this parliament, the executive, to commit troops in times of war without reference to a plebiscite.