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, 5 December 1973
Page: 2506

Senator RAE - Perhaps Senator Wilkinson would like to take the opportunity to explain what Mr Grassby meant in the advertisement. I am quite happy to send it across to him. But this promise was made again and again by the Labor Government. It induced the people of Australia on what, according to the opinion polls, is regarded by most people as the most important single issue, to vote by what has now turned out to be a falsehood. Are members of the Government not prepared to honour their promise? Are they not prepared for the sake of $5m to keep themselves honest? Are they prepared to say, by some sham of illogical reasoning, that they can get out of it because they moved a proposition in September of last year? That proposition was moved in a way which, if intended to be deceitful, certainly achieved its purpose. Nowhere in that proposition that they moved in the Houses of Parliament did they say that they would cut out any aid. In September 1972 Mr Beazley said:

This must mean that the poorer private schools will get more than they would under the Government 's flat rate legislation.

There was no reference there to saying that the richer private schools will get less or nothing; he said that the poorer private schools will get more. He continued:

If the sum total appropriated by the Government of Western Australia -

He was talking about what would happen in Western Australia- equals that being granted by the Commonwealth but is allocated on the basis of need it means that the poorer schools will get most.

The use of the expression 'will get most' must mean, as a matter of logic, that there are others getting less. That must mean that the richer schools will get less and the poorer schools will get more but everybody gets something. Those who deny that as a matter of syllogistic logic -

Suggest corrections