Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 1 December 1965


Mr DALY (Grayndler) .- It would be a good thing if members of the Liberal Party settled their differences and understood the Bill before they came into this place. We have been treated tonight to a most undignified and public display of the differences that exist among members of the Liberal Party. The Government is supposed to be united, but honorable members opposite have cast aspersions on the Attorney-

General's handling of this legislation. After all, the Attorney-General is doing his best. To hear the insinuations made against the Attorney-General by some of his supporters depresses honorable members on this side of the chamber. For the last 30 minutes or longer we have listened to all kinds of talk by Government supporters as to what should be done about this clause. I think the suggestion put forward by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) has considerable merit. But, as always, Government supporters will fight like heck but they will not call divisions. We can all- be great freedom fighters if we are not prepared to stand up and be counted. As I have said, I think there is merit in the suggestion of the honorable member for Isaacs. I trust that those who sit with him on the other side of the chamber will call for a division on his amendment. If honorable members opposite are only sham fighters on these issues why do they hold the Parliament up to ridicule? Why not be like members of the Australian Country Party and say nothing, knowing full well that what the Country Party Chairman of Committees said today about many honorable members opposite is quite true? A report in today's " Canberra Times " is interesting. It reads -

The Federal president of the APPU, Mr. J. P. Heffernan, said in a statement released in Canberra that a considerable amount of muddled thinking had been apparent from remarks made both inside and outside the House of Representatives.

The Country Party knows this. It has listened to members of the Liberal Party and has remained silent. The report continues - "The main fault with the legislation is that it has been weakened too much from the original proposals put forward by the former AttorneyGeneral, Sir Garfield Barwick," he said.

I note that members of the Country Party are not giving public expression to dog fights on legislation which we believe has the support of the Government. Why do honorable members opposite waste the time of the Parliament by casting aspersions on the ability and the attitude of the AttorneyGeneral, moving resolutions, and not calling for divisions? Honorable members opposite either firmly believe in what they are putting up or they do not. Putting on a sham fight for the wealthy interests that back the Government parties does not solve anything. While the expressions of disunity in the Government's ranks have been interesting, they have not added much to the debate.







Suggest corrections