Download Fragment

Wednesday, 13 March 1974

Senator BISHOP (South Australia) (Minister for Repatriation) - I oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers). I will be brief because the Senate has some urgent requirements, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) has pointed out. I was surprised by the vehement attack made by Senator Greenwood on Senator Murphy on a matter which is, after all, a formal matter and which should have been resolved between Senator Withers and Senator Murphy. Surely if there is a convention in the Parliament the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should have conferred with Senator Murphy on the prospect of delivering the Address-in-Reply. As you pointed out, Mr President, the convention has been for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to move a motion in respect of the Address-in-Reply. If we are to keep to the forms of the House and the conventions of the Senate the matter might well have been discussed in a serious way with Senator Murphy. Senator. Murphy in an aside to Senator Withers, mentioned the problems which have existed.

Senator Murphyis seeking the cooperation of the Senate in relation to the referenda Bills. I am rather surprised at the amount of attention and energy devoted to the debate on this matter. I suggest that Senator Withers could have talked to Senator Murphy to resolve the matter in a friendly way outside the chamber, perhaps by setting it down for debate tomorrow.

Senator Sir KENNETHANDERSON (New South Wales) (3.30)-I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a desire to proceed with the referendum Bills which we hope to get onto a little later. Not only as an honourable senator of long standing but also as a member of the Executive Council not under summons I feel bound to say that I find it is an extraordinary situation that in view of all the history of a parliament of the Commonwealth that I can bring to memory the Government should resist the presentation of an address-in-reply. I point out- and this is why I rose- that what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) did was to move an addition to the motion which was moved on behalf of the Government itself. To make the very essence of the point, I read the original motion of the Government to which words were added. It states:

Senator Murphy - We moved all that.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON -Yes, the Government moved that. But the Government does not want to take the address-in-reply which we have passed. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is to add the following words -

Senator Milliner - Read it out.

Senator Cant - Read all of it.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON -This is music to my ears, because it pins the truth of this matter. The amendment which has been moved adds no reflection to the expression of loyalty to the Throne proposed by the Senate. Down through the centuries every Parliament in the British Commonwealth has gone to express those words to Her Majesty's representative. Quite frankly, I am amazed that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) could not have said: 'All right, if the Leader of the Opposition moves the amendment let it be carried.' If honourable senators on the Government side do not want to go, as happened last year- and they did not go- they should settle for that. But they are going beyond that. I know Senator Murphy does not mean it this way but we could draw the inference that in a sense the Government is prejudicing the motion which it moved.

---