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, 17 September 1958

Mr SPEAKER - Order! I ask the House to come to order. The honorable member for Mackellar should at least be heard in silence.

Mr Osborne - On the point of order: I have never heard a more insincere point of order taken in this Parliament. The whole House knows that the Opposition is deliberately trying to create a disturbance in order to prevent the honorable member from being heard; and the disturbance is continuing.

Mr SPEAKER - I warn honorable members on the left that if they continue to conduct themselves in this way it will be necessary for me to take action against them. The honorable member for Mackellar has the right to speak.

Mr Osborne - I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER - Order! The Minister may not make it until the honorable member for Mackellar has finished speaking.

Mr WENTWORTH - I know that Labour is making a concerted attempt to laugh this off, but I assure them that they are not going to be able to laugh it off at the coming election. There is a basic confusion over the various definitions of socialism. For public consumption it is to be put as something which is very mild, but if you look at what the members of the party say when they are off their guard you will know that they mean the full treatment. It is thus, I think, that we must evaluate the peculiar confusion of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), who, in a television interview, expressed himself in favour of socialism and then watered it down, or tried to do so.

The same confusion lies behind their unity tickets. There is at the present moment an attempt to cover up; to try to give colour to the lie they are living by pretending that there has not been this alliance between the Communists and the Labour party in union elections. They nave .made an example of one or two people only. I have in my hand the unity ticket for the Waterside Workers Federation election last June. Mr. Healy appears on this ticket, as does Mr. Roach. Nobody is going to say that these people are not Communists, so we may assume that any person who is a member of the A.L.P. and who appears on this ticket is liable to expulsion, and if Labour had been honest, should have been dealt with. What are we going to say about Mr. Charlie Bird? He is on the ticket. What are we going to say about Jack Beitz? What are we going to say about Les Lyons, Frank Vincent, Jim Malcolm and Frank Casey? What are we going to say about all these people? Are they going to be expelled, or are they not? What about "Sandy" McIver, "Curly" Rourke, "Shirty" Finnigan and Bill Condron? Here they are. Their names are written down. Are they going .to be dealt with or are they not? The fact that they have not been dealt with is clear evidence of Labour dishonesty; of .the .fact that Labour is living a lie: of the fact that it is trying to deceive the' Australian people. What are we to think of this little booklet published by the Australian Labour party?

Mr SPEAKER - Order ! The honorable member's time has expired.

Mr Graham - Mr. Speaker, I move-

Mr SPEAKER - I call the honorable member for Scullin.

Mr Graham - Mr. Speaker, I wish to move that the honorable member for Mackellar be granted an extension of time.

Mr SPEAKER - The honorable member for St. George may proceed.

Mr Calwell - You called the honorable member for Scullin, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER - That is so, but the honorable member for St. George rose first. I assumed that he wished to speak on the adjournment and I automatically chose an Opposition member, as a Government member had just spoken. My ruling is thai he spoke before the honorable member for Scullin and therefore should have priority.

Motion (by Mr. Graham) proposed -

That the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) be granted an extension of time.

Mr SPEAKER - The question is that the honorable member for Mackellar be granted an extension of time. Those of that opinion say, "Aye", to the contrary, " No ". I think the " Ayes " have it.

Suggest corrections