Our society demands an ever higher level of skill from democratic politicians in discussing and explaining complex issues accurately and openly. This has particular weight in a world where issues have become so complex and governments' concerns so vast.

Let me now elaborate on some of these issues. While they particularly concern the politician, universities will fail in their role if they do not make an important contribution to dealing with them.

Let me take the first point I mentioned.

Our educational process has been designed to encourage people to think for themselves, to question, to search, to reach their own conclusions. It is the antithesis of the educational beliefs and ideals in the minds of children and adults, to encourage subservience to a party and to a state.

It is not at all surprising that our people, as never before, are questioning their leaders and their institutions.

In these circumstances we need to ask ourselves, as we never have before, how we maintain the cohesion, the unity, the vitality, of democratic societies and the effectiveness of democratic government.

We preach independence and diversity, but there is also an essential unity without which any society will fall.

At the time of your revolution and in the two centuries since, the problem of achieving unity out of diversity was largely the problem of welding different states, regions, ethnic groups, into one nation. These same issues have concerned us, though less forcefully, in Australia.

Today the problem has a new dimension. We are not talking merely about regions and communities. We are talking about individuals' demands for respect for their own views, their own consciences, against the larger society and its institutions. We are now talking about cultures, attitudes and ideas, which are becoming increasingly diverse.

Government, to be effective, must earn the respect of the people. In the age I have been describing this respect is more difficult to earn than in the past. How to achieve it is one of the most important issues of our time.

One thing is clear. If the people are to enjoy a substantial degree of freedom, they must be prepared to surrender some of their freedom.

In order that people may have the maximum scope to decide for themselves the kind of lives they will lead, they must be prepared to accept certain restraints, and this does not only apply to individuals. Organizations such as universities and private enterprise can exercise their freedom only if others are prepared to recognize and respect their right to do so.

The Law imposes certain obligations of non-interference, restraint on freedom which actually expand our capacities to decide and to act effectively for ourselves.

It is true that people's ultimate obligations are to their own consciences. But this does not mean that one is entitled to ignore laws with which one merely does not agree. Such an attitude destroys the effectiveness of our institutions and the possibility of effective social reform. Laws after all flow from institutions which though admittedly imperfect are the best form of Government yet devised.

Without the acceptance of such obligations people may become frustrated and disillusioned with democratic institutions, and their frustrations could ultimately feed the ambitions of those who seek undemocratic solutions to our problems.