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
Thursday, 8 March 1973
Page: 451

Sir JOHN CRAMER (Bennelong) - We have just heard the kind of speech to which we have become accustomed from the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who is also Leader of the House. The honourable member has called this a democracy. He spoke of freedom, free speech and the right to say one's piece. I came into the House tonight to say my piece on a most important subject, the Address-in-Reply. However, even though the time set aside for the debate had not expired - it was not 10.15 p.m. - I was gagged when I rose to speak. I understand this was done on the instructions of the Leader of the House. If that is not undemocratic I would like to know what is. After all, perhaps it would have been better for honourable members to have heard a few wise words from me than to witness the clowning of the Leader of the House. You know, Mr Speaker, that we get this sort of thing all the time. I wish the people of Australia could have heard tonight that somebody who had something important to say was gagged by this Government although we had to listen to 10 minutes of clowning by the honourable member for Grayndler. He said nothing. He was being personal in his remarks about some people and he tried to insult others. He calls this democracy. Well, I just do not understand it.

I would have liked to say something in the debate on the Address-in-Reply because I suppose it is the most important AddressinReply debate since I have been in this place. I approach the Governor-General's Speech much more in sorrow than in anger because if honourable members refer to the opening remarks of the Speech they will see that he talks about a mandate for change. He said that the Government wanted to achieve basic changes in the administration and structure of Australian society in the lifetime of this Parliament. In other words, within 3 years the whole structure of Australia and the society to which we have been accustomed is to be changed and, of course, this is a terrible thing. What do we have to change? I have not time in this debate to deal with all the matters 1 wish to raise but I want to refer to one important matter. What do we have to change? The Liberal Party of Australia and, I believe, the Australian Country Party stand for certain principles and they have stood by those principles in the last 23 years of this Parliament. The main principle is the freedom and rights of the individual which they consider to be superior to the rights of the state. The Labor Party has stood for the superiority of the state over the individual under a socialist system, and that is the difference between the Opposition and the Government. But there has been no fundamental change. A leopard does not change its spots. The Labor Party has not changed its principles. It still stands for a change of our society into a socialist state. There is no question about this and no-one will deny it.

I have not time in this debate to deal with what has been done in the 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government but the results of its policies have produced an era of the greatest development and prosperity this country has ever known. That has been done by this Parliament. Let us turn to the new look of the Labor Party. I say that it stands for the same thing now; it has not altered. Mr Chifley lost government because he wanted to nationalise and socialise everything. That was when the Liberals came to power. Dr Evatt's Party had the same new look idea that the Government has, except perhaps that it was flirting even more with communism than is the case today. The Calwell Party made excessive promises in the same way as the Whitlam Party is doing today, with the same conclusion - a socialist society. The Whitlam Party was not trusted by the people either. This time we had the great subterfuge. They softened on the socialist theme. Therefore they are trying to deceive the people about what can happen.

The election campaign was, I suppose, the most lavish in Australia's history and the cost was astronomical. I would like to know where the money came from. I know that a lot of my friends who were supposed to have money received personal letters signed by Mr Whitlam. Such letters went out all over Australia by the millions. The unions, under the Hawke influence at. that time, were forced to pay. But was there any overseas money that helped the Labor Party? It is strange that several overseas trips were made at that time by the present Prime Minister and by Mr Hawke, the Vice-President of the Party. They went to Israel and to other countries which were very anxious to see a Labor Party Government in Australia. So I ask whether overseas money was involved in that election.

Promises know no bounds with the Labor Party. It has promised social welfare schemes and improvements in housing, urban development and transport. No-one can deny that all the cranks, odd bods, drug addicts, homosexuals, abortionists, pornographers, Women's Liberation supporters and all the demonstrators in the world were brought together in one unified force to get the Labor Party into power. Another significant thing was that on this occasion, as distinct from any other occasion in our history, very few communists stood for election. The communists themselves lay down and supported the Labor Party because it was essential for the Labor Party to get into office. It is true to say that the people were lulled into a false sense of security. If they had had the chance 24 hours later they would not have made the same decision. There is no question or doubt about that. The people were horrified when this Government came to power. In the first week after the elections they were horrified. In that first week we had only 2 men controlling this country. That was the first taste of possible dictatorship in this country. Those 2 men handled 26 or 27 portfolios.

With unseemly haste the Government insulted our greatest friends and allies, the United States of America. Three Ministers joined the left wing Labor supporters and the communists in all the vile epithets they could think of, and the Prime Minister said nothing. He did not make one remark. All our British tradition was trampled underfoot by the Prime Minister. Royalty was given a slap in the face. Honourable members know what happened about the Queen's Honours and about the Prime Minister's refusal to accept the Privy Council appointment. Even the poor old Bentley car and its flag were ignored. But quick as a flash we embraced China. Hanoi and East Germany. Our close friend, Taiwan, was unceremoniously ejected within a matter of hours. One had only to be a good communist or a follower to get a job with the Labor Party. That has happened all over the place. We do not seem to realise it, but now we are actually living in Australia under a communist umbrella. We have deserted all our friends. The Government's intention is quite clear. The Prime Minister sees himself as a man of great destiny, and God help the state if he stays there long.

Suggest corrections