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
Tuesday, 29 August 1972
Page: 769

Mr Clyde Cameron (HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - Yes. Like the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) I did not have the material with me at the time. However I now have material with which to prove-

Mr SPEAKER -Order! To what date does the material refer?

Mr Clyde Cameron (HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - Today. The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) - J think he calls himself the Deputy Prune Minister - said that I advocated a 35-hour week across the board. I did not have the document in front of me at the time but 1 have it now. I refer to the 'Platform, Constitution and Rules' of the Australian Labor Party which states:

Public interest, therefore, demands that the Commonwealth play a positive role in cases before the Commission concerning -

(a)   provision for increased leisure time for employees in a manner which is appropriate to a particular industry and which will not affect the objective of ensuring that there is an increase in real wage and salary standards.

These provisions may include -

(iii)   a 35 hour working week,

According to the circumstances of an industry, including the history of the industry, the degree of automation and mechanisation and other relevant factors. The ultimate aim is to secure a 35 hour working week in circumstances which will ensure fair treatment of all sections of the community.

I conclude by simply restating, as I have done before publicly, that it is not the policy of my Party to advocate an across the board 35-hour week tomorrow morning as the Minister suggested.

Mr Scholes - Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on a matter which relates to what the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) raised. I think it is very important to the standing of this House. I ask: What provisions are there for the House to protect itself against Ministers making deliberately false statements in answer to questions?

Mr SPEAKER -Order! The language being used in this House is not in conformity with parliamentary usage. The honourable members remarks do not constitute a point of order. I should not be put in the position of informing honourable members of their rights in the House during debate. Therefore I shall not make any comment on the honourable member's question. However, I draw attention to the use of the word 'deliberately' and also to the word 'maliciously' which was used by the honourable member for Adelaide. I think it is time honourable members took stock of themselves. The verbiage they use in the House ought to be explicit, but it should be parliamentary verbiage.

Suggest corrections