Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (17:26): In the short time that is available to me, I'd like to thank Senator Bell for his contribution, because there's actually a lot in that to reflect and comment on. There are two words that Senator Bell used which I think are very important to amplify. The first is 'responsibilities' and the second is 'carefulness'. Our freedoms and rights in this country are to be exercised responsibly, and, when people get aggrieved about the expressions of freedoms and rights, it's often because people choose to express them with irresponsibility. The other is the matter of carefulness. When it comes to legislative change and when it comes to constitutional reform, we must always act with abundant care and caution. That is the Edmund Burke in me. Senator Scarr: Hear, hear! Senator DEAN SMITH: Thank you, Senator Scarr. I suspect there's some Edmund Burke in you, and listening to Senator Bell's contribution, I suspect there is some Edmund Burke in him as well, and that is to be applauded. But Senator Bell, I think, has expressed, as many have, a misunderstanding of the events and preconditions that led to the 'no' vote at the last referendum. I have to say that I think it's probably the least understood referendum in our whole country. There are certain features of our referendums that exist irrespective of the subject matter. Those are, first, a great caution amongst Australians in changing the Constitution, whatever the merit; and, second, the fact that constitutional referendums start with high levels of support and end in strong levels of resistance, which speaks to Australians' suspicion of central government, the sense of isolation that citizens feel and the strong affirmation they feel for their states and their regional communities. It is important to recognise that the freedom of speech we have in our country is consciously limited. As Senator Scarr remarked, it's limited in a number of ways. But there is a free speech debate that I think we should start to talk about in our country and in this Senate chamber, and that is the ambition of some people on the left of Australian politics to introduce a bill of rights. Our founding fathers made a very conscious decision that we would have a constitution, that we would instil the strongest of parliamentary sovereignty and that we would not embrace a bill of rights. In this parliament already, in various committees, there are plans and ambitions to have a federal bill of rights. Those of us who are institutionally conservative, have a great respect for and want to uphold the freedom of speech in our country—in the Australian context, in the Australian way—can find a sense of unity not necessarily around Senator Babet's bill but in opposing a bill of rights. Debate interrupted.