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, 14 August 1974
Page: 893


Senator WOOD (Queensland) -In speaking to the Trade Practices Bill I remark on the attitude of Senator Hall to what has been said in this chamber by honourable senators on the Opposition side. In the very short time that the honourable senator has been in this chamber I have heard so often from this mastermind of Australian politics, from this 'Labor' leader from South Australia, what small fry and nincompoops we on this side apparently are. Now he is accusing us on this side of representing certain interests from which we have received instructions. I say this to Senator Hall: I receive no instructions from anyone and I always vote in this chamber according to what I think. I defy Senator Hall, this newcomer in the Senate, to show otherwise. When he makes these claims or charges, he ought to have some foundation for them. Last night we saw a similar demonstration. Now he stands here and says that he is antiLabor; but there would not be a stronger Labor man in the Senate than Senator Hall.

Senator Hallalso stated that the Bill now before us is practically the same as that which Sir Garfield Barwick wanted to bring in. I say, with due deference to the people who have sponsored any trade practices legislation, that this Bill is based on a different principle from those of previous days. Until now the Trade Practices Act has operated in this country on the English basis. I think that the Attorney-General, Senator

Murphy, would be willing to say that this Bill proposes to change the trade practices legislation more towards the American system. I think that is the particular difference. For Senator Hall to stand up and say that this Bill is exactly the same as that brought in by Sir Garfield Barwick shows how strong is his Labor bias.

Senator Hallalso referred to the speech made by Senator Wright. In the 25 years that I have been here I have heard Senator Wright make some very fine contributions to debates in this chamber. I believe that when reports of the Senate debates are read in the years ahead the Senate will receive a lot of credit, particularly for the contributions by Senator Wright. What is more, Senator Wright has adopted an independent attitude in regard to legislation, not only while we have been sitting on this side of the Parliament, in Opposition, but also while we were in office. I think Senator Murphy would agree that Senator Wright made a good contribution to this debate and that in it he brought forth certain aspects for our consideration. If one of those aspects does not strike home to Senator Hall he is pretty dumb.

One of the important aspects that Senator Wright brought out was the omission of control over industrial unions. I think it can be said that this is an omission from the Bill, whether it was done by design, as a result of the natural thinking of the Attorney-General about trade practices, or whether it was done from a political point of view. I cannot say the reason, but I think that control over industrial unions should be included in this Bill. To suggest that Senator Wright's speech was of no consequence shows how little the Labor senator from South Austrafia, Senator Hall, really considers debates in this chamber. I have listened to several speeches from Senator Hall and I have yet to hear him use a good, solid, compact series of arguments in this chamber. I am still waiting. I thought I should rise and state my sentiments and let the Senate know that what has been the situation in the 25 years up to now is still the situation, namely, that I am not being dictated to by anyone outside this Parliament.







Suggest corrections