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
Tuesday, 20 November 1973
Page: 1917


Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - I think it is a fair comment on the various contributions which Senator Carrick has made to the debate on this Bill so far, both in the second reading debate and in the debate today, that he has proved himself to be a very selective quoter. It was only after he was jolted by the Minister for the Media (Senator

Douglas McClelland) today that he acknowledged that the sentence which followed his quotation in the second reading debate altered the total effect of that quotation.


Senator Rae - He did not acknoledge that.


Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) -That is the way I heard it.


Senator Rae - He stated the very opposite.


Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) -That is my interpretation. There will be a lot about interpretations. Even more importantly, it would be interesting to know why he needed a telegram from Mrs Ryan before he acknowledged that the letter, a portion of which he read out the other day, contained a paragraph which was directly in conflict with the paragraph which he chose to take out of context.


Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - Again it is a matter of interpretation.


Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - I do not think there can be any doubt about the meaning of these words which we have heard for the first time from Senator Carrick today. I understand that what we are talking about, what the argument is about, is the meaning of the word representation'. If we are to have literal High Court interpretations of mandates, such as we had from Senator Carrick today and the other day- if we are to have misrepresentation of what I said in the second reading debate, which I shall also demonstrate to Senator Carrick and the Senate- it is necessary that we examine the plain meaning of the paragraph which Senator Carrick read to the Senate only after his memory was jolted by a telegram. He has this letter in his hand the other day when he chose to omit this paragraph which I shall repeat:

As you will see from the (2) enclosed copies of past correspondence, our Council has never argued for direct representation.


Senator Douglas McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - Which Council is that?


Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) -This is the Australian Council of State School Organisations. Senator Carrick did not see fit to tell the Senate that until he received a telegram from Mrs Ryan suggesting that the whole story should be told to the Senate. Mrs Ryan went on to say:

It is our view that the proposed commission must be a completely independent body, capable of making recommendations on the basis of need alone. We consider that a Commission composed of direct nominees of groups with report back obligations to those groups would not be able to function in this way.

She then went on to add the paragraph which Senator Carrick did read the other day.


Senator Carrick - And what does it mean?


Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - I suggest, senator, that in the first place honesty and completeness required you to read that sentence as well in order that the Senate -


Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - I rise to take a point of order. There has been an interpretative reflection on the honesty and veracity of a senator made by Senator James McClelland which I think is completely out of order.


Senator Webster - It is not unusual for him to doit.


Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - He is suggesting that Senator Carrick was not honest in what he said.


Senator Webster - We get used to it from Senator James McClelland.


Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) -Can we have some suggestions from you, senator, instead of your usual absurd abuse?







Suggest corrections