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, 3 May 1961

Mr ANDERSON (Hume) (1:28 AM) .I will be very brief at this late hour, but there are two points I want to make. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), who usually makes a very intelligent contribution to debates in this chamber, when presenting his argument on the question of city electorates and country electorates asked where a manufacturer of stockings would set up his factory. He said that the manufacturer would, of course, set up his factory in Sydney, where the market is. On that argument, every factory would be established in Sydney.

Mr Beazley - That is what is happening.

Mr ANDERSON - Is that what is happening now? Is that what the Australian Labour Party wants?

Mr Beazley - I am not advocating it. I am merely saying that if private enterprise operates on that basis, that is what it will do. The establishment of factories in city areas or country areas has nothing to do with the number of voters.

Mr ANDERSON - Nonsense. If we had a proper State government, the drift to the city could be changed. But the State Government permits 64 members to represent Sydney electorates and only 30 members to represent country areas.

The members of the Labour Party think like ants and live like ants in concentrated areas like Sydney and Melbourne. They have an ant-like complex. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), in an effort to refute the argument presented by the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull), quoted South Australia as an example. Why take an exceptional State?

Mr Beazley - South Australia has not had a Labour government for 30 years.

Mr ANDERSON - But why take an exceptional State? In mentioning a State in which there is no Country Party, the honorable member used a very poor argument in seeking to establish his case. If the margin allowed on either side of the quota were 10 per cent., then conditions would develop which could result only in cities like Sydney and Melbourne becoming bigger and bigger. Every new redistribution of boundaries would mean that there would be fewer people representing country districts and more people representing city electorates. Then we would have centralization.

Suggest corrections