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, 24 November 1965

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay (BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - Order! The honorable member's time has expired.

Mr. TURNBULL(Mallee) [5.22J. - I shall not delay the House for very long, but we have just listened to four speakers from the Opposition three of whom criticised Government supporters for not speaking on this legislation. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) did not criticise. When the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Reynolds) expressed this criticism I interjected and said: " On what authority are you speaking?" and he said: "Are you going to speak?" and I said: " Yes ". The Opposition surely should be quite happy, because, after all, the Government introduced this legislation and Government supporters favour it and will vote for it. Strangely, the Opposition will vote for it too. As we are trying to get through the business of the House long before Christmas, when both sides of the House support a measure it should not be debated all day.

I should like now to examine the amendment moved by the honorable member for Fremantle. He has suggested the omission of all words after " That " and the insertion of the following words: " whilst not opposing the passage of the Bill", and so on. This substantiates what I have said. The Opposition is not opposing the passage of the Bill but it is taking the opportunity to include aspects that are mentioned in the amendment. The amendment continues - the House is of opinion that the Government should adopt the recommendations concerning university dental schools by the Committee on Teaching Costs of Medical Hospitals.

It is noteworthy that such an amendment should be moved. It will add considerable costs to the Budget, yet not one member of the Opposition has suggested where this extra money should be collected. It seems that they think money comes to the Government by magic. The Government is progressive and it builds up funds which it uses in the best way possible for the country. The Australian Labour Party is never satisfied. If the Government provides a subsidy of £2 for £1 for homes for the aged the Opposition wants £3 for £1, or if £3 for £1 it wants £4 for £1. Members opposite never suggest where the Government should get the money. If the Government collected the money by way of direct taxation the Opposition would say that the working man was being affected by the taxation. If it collected the money by means of indirect taxation the Opposition would say that this was wrong. So I do not take very seriously the submissions made today by Opposition speakers, because none of them has told us how this extra money should be raised. Many other things have been said in the debate. The honorable member for Fremantle said that today people have a life expectancy of 70 years compared with 54 years some time ago.

Mr Beazley - I said that in 1901 people had a life expectancy of 52 years.

Suggest corrections