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
Thursday, 10 March 1977


Mr INNES (Melbourne) - I claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Speaker.


Mr SPEAKER -I remind the honourable member for Melbourne that it is customary to approach the Chair and to warn the Chair that an honourable gentleman seeks to make a personal explanation. In what nature has the honourable gentleman been misrepresented?


Mr INNES -It is in much the same terms as was the case with the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating).


Mr SPEAKER -In respect of what?


Mr INNES - On the same subject.


Mr SPEAKER -Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?


Mr INNES - I do.


Mr SPEAKER


Mr INNES - In the same publication to which the honourable member for Blaxland referred, the following was stated:

Despite the constant mutterings of senators Brown and Melzer while forum members were addressing the committee', the IPR letter states, 'we have had favourable comments back from other committee members including Ted Innes . . .

I say unequivocally that this statement is irresponsible and mischievous. It could do me a great deal of personal harm as from a long way back I have been an opponent of uranium mining. I do not agree with the proposition put in the Labor Caucus by my colleague. I am opposed to uranium mining but the inference in this publication is that I adopt the opposite attitude. I have never spoken to anybody from International Public Relations. I never have been lobbied on this issue, nor do I think it probable that people would take the trouble to lobby me about it. My views are well known in that area. I think the report is irresponsible. Probably the explanation I have given will clear the situation.


Mr SPEAKER -Order! The honourable gentleman has made the point quite clear.


Mr INNES -I hope the publishers of the Nation Review will afford me the same opportunity as they afforded my colleague.







Suggest corrections