House of Representatives
10 November 1927

10th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1190

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH LINE OF STEAMERS

MotionofWantof Confidence.

Debate resumed from 9th November (vide page 1149) on motion by Mr. Charlton -

That, owing to its attitude towards the Commonwealth Shipping Line, the Governmenthas forfeited the confidence of this House. The surrender of Government ownership of the Commonwealth Line will act to the serious detriment of Australian producers and will subject the whole community to exploitation by the Shipping Combine, against which the Government Line is at present the only effective safeguard.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– Last evening, when I obtained leave to continue my remarks today, I was discussing certain difficulties which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) encountered in 1921 in his endeavours, as a private member, to make an effective analytical criticism of the financial statements which were issued from time to time by the management of our Shipping Line. Following upon the quotation I made from his speech, which appears on page 133-40 of the Mansard report for the 29th November, 1921, I quote the following: -

Mr. Poynton. Has the honorable member asked any of the officials for a statement concerning ex-enemy ships?

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– No. With all respect to the Minister I do not think it is part of my business to hunt out information which ought to be available to every honorable member of this House, and which, I venture to say, they are entitled .to

Those words may well be used to-day to voice the complaint of honorable members on this side of the Chamber. We are unable to obtain proper information on this subject. It appears that even the Prime Minister himself is ignorant of certain aspects of the case, for when the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) read extracts last night from certain cables which had passed between some of the members of the Shipping Board in Melbourne and the Chairman in London, he confessed that that was the first he had heard of them. The Prime Minister’s position is pitiable, and so is that of the honorable members who support him; but it makes the less excusable this proposal that the Line should be sold. If, in spite of what has occurred, honorable members opposite allow the Government to dispose of the Line, they will become parties to one of the most deplorable political episodes in the history of Australia. I assure honorable members opposite that had a Labour Government attempted to foist upon us a proposition similar to this, with such scant information we should very quickly have removed them from office. Honorable members opposite may be inclined to say that this is a matter of diplomacy, but we regard it as one of absolute duplicity. I shall also quote from a speech delivered by Sir Robert Best during the same debate. That gentleman, who at the time was representing the division of Kooyong, was opposed to the retention of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers; but when the cablegram-referred to yesterday afternoon by the right honorable member for North Sydney - from Lord Inchcape offering to buy the Commonwealth Line was read, he said: -

I do not approve of the cable suggestion by Lord Inchcape that the Commonwealth Line should be sold to the conference ring which he represents. There is no doubt that the influences of the “ conference “ are very serious, but how far the small Line of ships owned by the Commonwealth has any effect on the operations of the “ Conference “ is another matter.

I do not, suggest for a moment that Sir Robert Best was favorable to the retention of the Line. I am merely pointing out that he was totally opposed to the handing of it over to the Inchcape interests. The Hansard report from which J. quoted appears on page 13331 of volume XCVIII., and it continues : -

Mr. PointonWhy should he propose to buy our ships if they have no influence?

Sir ROBERT BEST:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Simply to enable us to gel rid of our ships and thus free him of their competition whatever it is. They do handle some proportion of the trade, and Lord’ Inchcape is a keen business man.

Air. RICHARD Foster. - He desires to make a business deal.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Of course; and no doubt it would be satisfactory for him to rid his enterprise of the influence of the Commonwealth ships, small though it be.

It will thus be seen that even a memberof the Nationalist party who was opposed to this government enterprise was not prepared to allow it to fall into the hands of Lord Inchcape. Occasionally, I like to put into the witness box witnesses who are not, as a general rule, favorable to the Labour party’s policy. These may be called hostile witnesses, and for that reason their testimony is, in some ways, valuable. If a case can be established on their evidence it is doubly established. A leading article on the proposed disposal of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers appeared in yesterday’s issue of the Sydney Sun.

Sir Elliot Johnson:

– A capitalistic newspaper.

Mr.FELTON.- That is so; it is for that reason that I describe the writer of this article as a hostile witness. He has a good deal to say in favour of the retention of this Line. I am glad to know that he has done it without solicitation either from me or from other members of my party. The article reads: -

UnlockingtheDoortoInchcape.

Ostensibly, Mr. Bruce’s facts about the Commonwealth Line are true enough.

The Line does lose half-a-million a year. The seamen and other unions have given it extraordinarily bad treatment.” A great many people in this country do not subscribe to the idea of the Government running a shipping Line.

Behind these facts, however, are others unexpressed to Mr. Bruce’s explanation.

The Line loses £500.000 a year. Why?

It loses it because the controlling authorities are at loggerheads between themselves. Discord unquestionably prejudices management, and the Government has not done its job to the Line in allowing this lack of harmony in control to continue. The Government, in fact, witha Prime Minister who is obviously hostile to the idea of a Government Line of Steamers, has entirely neglected this business, and when any business is neglected, it goes to pieces. Unsympathetic Government and divided management - what could be expected ?

Under this head, too, we may place the “ extraordinarily bad treatment “ of seagoing unions. A strong control would not have tolerated for an instant this treatment. A strong Government - determined to aid its own Line, would have very quickly shown seamen where their interest and duty lay.

No doubt, there are, also, many folk who do not believe in state enterprise taking the form of a Line of steamers, but -

There is a very particular reason why this general objection to state enterprise should be modified here.

This Line is the only defence the Australian producer, who wishes to export, has against the Conference Lines. It is the only defence which the importer has against the same great sea-controlling monopoly. For many years, all the power and influence of this Combine has been bent upon the destruction of the Commonwealth Line. It has been the subject of bitter reference by the Chairman at shareholders meetings. Why? Let the farmer and the grazier and the importer - and the public, which is also interested in factors which affect the cost of living - ask why?

For the £500,000 loss each year which the general taxpayer must boar, the Line probably saves millions in freight by keeping the charges of the Conference Lines down upon the level of reason. Is that no justification for its existence?

The money which every householder, who is wise, pays for fire insurance, is not grudged nor should a reasonable amount paid for freight insurance be held as a cause of anger against the Line. The anger should be against the Government which has treated the Line just as badly as the seafaring unions, only in another way.

It is strange, indeed, to seethe Country members of Mr. Bruce’s Government acquiescing in a course of action so inimical to the interests of their constituents.As it is now, the city taxpayer pays his share of the loss - would he pay any increased freights charged to the wheat and wool and meat growers, if the Line disappeared?

The feeling of distrust of the Conference Lines, which this paperhas expressed so consistently, and which is felt by so many Australians, is not confined to Australia.

A month ago the Empire Commercial Congress, at Cape Town, rejected, by a narrow margin of four votes, a resolution urging that where shipping monopolies, such as the Conference Lines, exist, no alterations in the rates should bc made without first consulting organized commercial interests in Great Britain and the Dominion concerned.

It is all very well for Mr. Bruce to talk about safeguards. There is only une safeguard against monopoly, and that is an active competitor.

There is one oustanding fact which the people of Australia may as wellconsider -

If a private company, burdened with the conditions Which Mr. Bruce indicates that the Government will impose on the purchaser of the Line, can make the line pay dividends, then there is no excuse for the loss of £500,000 a year made by the Government, and it behoves the Government before it destroys what is undoubtedly a safeguard to discover if, by any means, and how, that yearly deficit may be avoided.

I commend that article to the attention of all honorable members, irrespective of their political opinions. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley), referred to the discord that exists on the shipping board. I hesitate to say that any of the members of that board are actuated by ulterior motives, but it will be interesting to follow the history of one particular member should the Conference Line purchase the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. If it is disclosed that we had an enemy in our camp, one who was shepherding the interests of the Conference Line while in the employ of our own Line, I consider that this Government must have been aware of the position. If it has allowed that man to pursue his nefarious practices with the object of bring disaster to the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, that has been done to facilitate its task of disposing of the Line. That is a disgraceful condition of affairs. The Line is the only defence afforded to Australian producers against the Conference Line. Where are the supporters of the Bruce-Page Government who have so strenuously asserted that they represent our primary producers? The gentleman who wrote that article, although not a supporter of the Labour party, is thoroughly familiar and in sympathy with the needs of the producers of Australia. The honorable member for Wimmera is fighting for the retention of the Line. He has made some sacrifice and taken a considerable risk in adopting his present attitude, but he will be supported by an army of producers who will soon overwhelm those perfidious individuals who support the Bruce-Page Government, and have shown their indifference to the welfare of our producers. Where is the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott), and the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Cook)., and what have they to say on the comments I have quoted ? The editor who penned that article is the independent witness whom I place in the box this morning. His testimony is overwhelmingly opposed to the disposal of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and, before it is too late, the Government should reconsider its decision, and play fair to those who are the backbone of Australia.

Mr Killen:

– Does the honorable member consider that that article represents the opinions of the producers?

Mr.FENTON.- Yes, with all my heart. “ It is strange, indeed, to see the Country members of Mr. Bruce’s Government acquiescing in a course of action so inimical to the interests of their constituents.” In short, terse words, that article represents the true opinions and interests of the producers of Australia. They have fought these combines, and now have to fight the combine of the BrucePage Composite Government, which is playing up to the shipping combine, the enemy of this country. Nemesis is on the trail of the Government, and it will regret its iniquity too late. The division list to-day will be circulated throughout Australia, and will show the producer who are his friends. I am very pleased that there has fallen to me the privilege of first quoting that article, and I am sorry if, by reading the whole of it, I have deprived honorable members opposite of some of their thunder. If honorable members desire to read the article, they will find it inscribed upon the sacred pages of Ilansard, from which we shall be able to quote extracts in future, when desired. That is one advantage that we gain from embalming such treasures in Hansard. So far as the debate has proceeded, the Bruce-Page party has been knocked kite high; and when the electors have the opportunity to deliver a blow it will not be able to rise because it will have received a knockout. The Prime Minister is looking to the Italians, the Norwegians, the Greeks, the French, the Germans, to anybody except true Australians to save him. This is one of the most serious matters that has ever been discnssed in the Commonwealth Parliament. Whether the debate will have any influence on the Government or induce it to amend the conditions of sale, I am unable to say. But if I were a member of the Country warty and professed to rely upon the support of primary producers, I should say to the Prime Minis- ter, “ You have placed us in a most invidious position, in that you have called upon us to give a decision without placing before us the true facts of the position.” Those honorable members sh >uld ask the right honorable gentleman to have additional safeguards inserted in the proposals of the Government that are to be made to the Combine. If a sale is effected the conservative j urnals of Australia, thePrime Minister, and even some Country party members, may say that it has been made not to the conference but to some outside body. How will they know that that is so? No one can without a feeling of alarm study the list which was placed before the House last night by the honorable member for- Dalley (Mr. Theodore) the companies in which the shipping magnate, Lord Inchcape, has an interest. Do honorable members opposite want to be dragged at the Avheel of his chariot ? If T know anything of the true Australian he is averse from being dragged at the heel? of any Combine. The honorable member for Gwydir '’Mr. Abbott) evidently considered that he was giving expression to noble sentiments when he said, “ We are doing this in the full light of day.”Is the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr.

Atkinson) or the honorable member for Lang (Sir Elliot Johnson) in agreement with that statement?

Sir Elliot Johnson:

– Certainly.

Mr FENTON:

– Certain information was not in the possession of honorable members until they received it last night from the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). They recorded their votes in Caucus at a time when they lacked a full knowledge of the facts. That will always stand to their discredit, both politically and in other ways. Honorable members who sit on this side have endeavoured to show that the Governments of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada have expended many millions of pounds in the maintenance of state-owned lines of shipping, and those governments intend to continue that expenditure so that they may save their people from the rapacious demands that are made by the Shipping Combine. I used the word “ expended “ advisedly. It has not been a loss to their people, because the saving to them has been many millions of pounds greater than the outlay. If it is a good thing for the United States of America and Canada to adopt this policy in order to save their people from the rapacity of the Combine, it should be good for Australia to do the same. I have read to the House speeches that were delivered by the late Mr. Bonar Law when he was Chancellor of the British Exchequer, and have made quotations from a work by Sir Leo Chiozza Money to illustrate the manner in which the people of the British Empire were exploited during the Great War. In a period of nineteen months, with shipping that in pre-war days was valued at only £170,000,000, the profits which were accumulated by the Combine totalled £350.000,000! If these vampires will suck the lifeblood of their nation in times of dire distress, they will not hesitate. to exploit the people of Australia should they obtain a monopoly of the shipping between this country and other parts of the world. As in the days of Grattan, one would appear to be appealing to a dead Parliament. He appealed to a a parliament that had been won over by bribery and other foul means. I do not make that charge against this Parliament; but I do say that it has been won over under circumstances that are discreditable alike to the Government and its followers. Whether the Prime Minister is right or wrong, whether he has or has not placed all the cards on the table and given tlie fullest information, he has a band oi followers who are so blind that they are prepared to follow him into the morass ‘hat lies ahead. That, however, is their concern. I am thankful that this will not be the end of the chapter. The division that will be recorded on this motion will show, on the one side the true patriots of Australia, those who believe in conserving the best interests of the Australian people, both primary producers and others, and who on all occasions wl en they are assailed by vampires will stand by them; and on the other side men who have deserted the Australian nation and its people in a manner that will stand to their everlasting disgrace

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I regret that this debate is taking place on a want of confidence motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) rather Oban du a motion for the adoption of the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, together with a statement of the Government’s intentions. I hope that this matter will not have to be traversed again, but that whatever decision is arrived at will be final. In 1921 the Line was at its zenith. During the war period certain ships were purchased by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and they were employed largely, but n6t altogether, in the Australian service. It has been claimed that the Line afforded great benefit to the primary producers; but I point out that the high freights charged by shipping generally were exacted by it. Although the vessels may have served .a useful purpose, the Line was not the unmixed blessing that some persons seem to imagine. In 1921, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) was a private member, he made, a statement to the House which was prefaced by the remark that he would .address it as though he were speaking at a meeting of directors. The way in which the honorable member for Flinders set out the position of the Line must have commanded the admiration of the House, and if Parliament had acted on the advice tendered by him at that time, a saving of at least £11,500,000 would have been made. Shortly after that speech he was taken into the Hughes Cabinet, and then came a proposal to alter the constitution of’ the Line by placing it under the control of a non-political board. The Hughes’ Government had not time to do that; but the present Prime Minister effected the change. By the establishment of the board he gave the Line every possible consideration, although I believe that he acted contrary to his own convictions. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) denied that the Line had had a fair trial. The ex -Prime Minister, of course, sponsors it, and can see no fault in it. He complained that the values of the ships had been written down too heavily, although they were the same as when his Government was in power. The transfer of the control of the Line to a non-political board, and the writing down of the vessels to their then commercial value, gave the Line every chance. Much has been said concerning the interim report submitted to the Government during the progress of the inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee. I propose to give the House an idea of the circumstances under which that report was presented. A director of the Line asked the committee, almost in tears, to make some declaration before the Parliament went into a long recess. It was pointed out that, since the committee could not submit a final report, it would do great harm to the Line to leave a doubt as to its fate. I was totally opposed to the presentation of the interim report. I am rather surprised at the attitude of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C.Riley), in view of the action on that occasion by him and the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Parker Moloney). When I expressed the hope that they would not use the interim report for political advantage, or prejudice the final decision of the committee, I was assured that nothing of the kind would happen. But look at the capital that in this debate has been made out of the interim decisions.

Mr Theodore:

– Was not the interim report in accord withthe opinion of the committee ?

Mr PROWSE:

– The honorable member for Cook can answer that question.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Let the honorable member for Forrest state his own views frankly.

Mr PROWSE:

– I shall do that. I almost made myself a nuisance to the committee by my opposition to the presentation of the interim report. In the final recommendation that the Line be disposed of, I heartily concur. I have no interest in any shipping line. I am speaking not only for myself, but f or other primary producers as well, and it is interesting to me to listen to honorable members on the other side trying to make capital out of what they allege the primary producers will suffer if the Line is disposed of. The primary producers themselves know . just what they are suffering to-day. The longer this Line is retained the greater will be the losses incurred, andthose losses will fall ultimately uponthe shoulders of the people on the land.No less than 97 per cent. of the exports from Australia are primary products. The Line, as at present constituted, cannot legitimately reduce freights, because of its running costs. Eather does it tend to keep freights up, because it takes from other lines some of the limited quantity of cargo offering. The committee experienced great difficulty in getting unbiased evidence on the question of the retention or disposal of the Line. Difficulty arose because the witnesses whom we felt compelled to call, were either directly, or indirectly, interested in the continuance of the Line. If we had called witnesses representing the competing shipping lines, honorable members opposite would say that their evidence was not worth the paper upon which it was printed.

Mr Fenton:

– Is it not the practice in inquiries of this nature to take evidence of the head of the department concerned ?

Mr PROWSE:

– I repeat that the committee found the greatest difficulty in obtaining evidence from unbiased sources. Honorable members opposite pretend that, in opposing the disposal of this Line, they are concerned chiefly with the interests of the primary producers. 1 maintain, however^ that the retention of this Line is a fetish with them. They would have the Line continue no matter what happens. Who was it signed the minority report of the committee? Members drawn from the opposite side of the House, the representatives of the Labour party. I . do not make any reflection on those members, but I desire to emphasize that practically all the evidence we heard was from men who were engaged in earning their living in connexion with the Line itself. A good deal has been made out of statements to the effect that the Australian Commonwealth Line has reduced freights, and has been an element in preventing the raising of freights. I admit that there may appear to be certain grounds for saying that ; but when the facts are examined it will be discovered that nothing of the kind occurred. My firm conviction is that nothing could have suited the other shipping interests better than the competition of the Commonwealth Line. Would any honorable member opposite back a Clydesdale horse against Tri valve? The Commonwealth Line came into competition with the other shipping lines only in regard to certain commodities, and on some of those commodities the freights are higher now than they were before the Commonwealth Line commenced operations. The Commonwealth Line was unable, or did not wish apparently to compete for wheat, and only carried a small portion of the wheat, which forms one of the largest items of export from this country. The Line could have had nearly all the wheat freights from Victoria at one time, but it did not make any attempt to secure them. Nevertheless, wheat is the only commodity that is being exported from Australia at the 1914 freight, and the Commonwealth Line can take no credit for that. This Line has been in existence only since 1916. What happened during the 100 years or so during which Australia was settled prior to the inauguration of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Line? Australia was then at the tender mercy of other shipping lines, . but freights for most commodities were lower then than they are now. Unlike the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), I have not been supplied with copies of documents from outside sources, but speaking from memory concerning the evidence placed before the Public Accounts Committee, I think a cablegram, in -the following terms, was received from one of the directors in in England by another director in Australia : -

Blue Funnel Line forcing freights; reducing freight on wool by Jd. Do you agree?

The Board cabled back that it agreed to this and- other reductions, and stated that it considered that it should announce the reductions in Australia in order that the Commonwealth Line should obtain the “kudos.” Evidence to that effect was submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. I presume the cablegrams are now in the possession of the Prime Minister. The London office cabled back that it would be a breach of faith for the Commonwealth Line to make a premature announcement, and that it considered that the announcement should be made simultaneously in England and Australia. Yet the board in Australia claimed the entire credit for the reductions, notwithstanding that the Blue Funnel Line was responsible for them. The committee found it most difficult to obtain unbiased evidence. In the interest of the public these facts should be made known.

Mr Coleman:

– The whole of the facts should be placed before us.

Mr PROWSE:

– I have no objection to that being done. With the clear evidence before me of the board’s willingness to take a mean advantage of those with whom it was associated, I cannot think that in other matters the whole of the blame lies with the Conference Lines. Do honorable members opposite seriously believe that the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, with its small fleet, is able to dictate to the other shipping companies in the matter of freights, particularly when the expenses of vessels on the Australian register are far greater than those of vessels on any other register? The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) spoke of the necessity of maintaining the high standard of living which we now enjoy in Australia. It is one thing to set up a standard and another thing to pay for it.

As a primary producer I have yet to be convinced that the maintenance of an uneconomic standard of living can benefit me. Honorable members opposite would have us believe that to dispose of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers would be to act disloyally towards Australia. They say that an important principle is involved in the question whether or not the vessels should be on the Australian or the British register. That is all very well for those who have not to pay for the vessels being on the Australian register. Should the Line go out of existence, the section of the community represented by honorable members opposite will be more to blame than any other section. “When the Line was suffering an annual loss of approximately £500,000 and its vessels were a diminishing asset, the Seamen’s Union, notwithstanding that those of its members who were employed by the Line received better wages and conditions than existed in connexion with the ships of any other country, showed its loyalty by approaching the Arbitration Court for increased rates of pay. That was not an act of V loyalty.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable mem? ber sells his produce in the highest market.

Mr PROWSE:

– It is stated that when the Conference Lines suggested an increase in freight rates, the Australian board objected, and instead, urged that there should bc a decrease of tonnage. In crossexamination one witness who appeared before the committee admitted that if the Line were to continue, and freights were to be reduced, additional vessels would be necessary. Reluctantly he had to admit that the addition of those vessels would aggravate the unsatisfactory state of affairs that then existed, and that it was not likely that the great colossus - the Shipping Combine - would reduce tonnage to make way for new vessels belonging to the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. There is more likelihood of freights being reduced with the Commonwealth Line out of the way than if it continues to operate. The Inchcape Group would be in a better position to maintain, or to increase, freights with the Line still in existence, than if that

Line were no longer engaged in the shipping business. The Commonwealth Line stabilizes freights for the Inchcape Group. .

Mr Fenton:

– Then why did Lord Inchcape want to buy the vessels?

Mr PROWSE:

– I repeat that not only is the Line not instrumental in reducing freights, but it is instrumental in maintaining them.

Mr Theodore:

– The report of the committee of which the honorable gentleman is a member, says otherwise.

Mr PROWSE:

– An unbiased person can come to no other conclusion than that which I have expressed.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Then why did the honorable member sign the report?

Mr PROWSE:

– The honorable member knows I did not sign it. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) said last night that freights between Australia and the United Kingdom were cheaper in proportion to distance than between any other countries. No one knows better than the honorable member that long distance freights are the cheapest that can be obtained. Our experience in the Australian coastal trade has proved that. It is to be hoped that, in furtherance of its policy to improve our shipping conditions, the Government will shortly take the necessary action to rid Australia of another incubus, the Navigation Act. At present freights between Adelaide and Fremantle are higher than freights from New York or London to Fremantle. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) had something to say about the Inchcape incubus. I wonder if he is aware that the* same combine is effectively operating in the Australian mercantile marine. If that handicap to our progress were removed, there would be some likelihood of competition in the Australian coastal trade, and primary producers would be in a much better position. Reference has also been made to the attitude, of the Governments of Canada and the United States of America towards governmentowned shipping services. Both countries have already lost a great deal of money.

Mr Cook:

– The right honorable member for North Sydney told the House about the experience of those countries yesterday.

Mr PROWSE:

– Their position is not parallel with those of Australia, because both are large manufacturing countries, and do not depend so much as does Australia upon the export of primary products. Their export trade in secondary products is a large one, whereas the Australian export trade in such lines could almost be taken away in a handbag. Do honorable members opposite suggest thatwe should continue to maintain the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Line for the purpose of bringing imports to Australia? The requirements of our primary producers would be met if the necessary provision were made for the export of our wool and wheat, and if a reasonable amount of refrigerated space were guaranteed for export beef, fruit, butter, and mutton, and other lines which we are able to produce for sale overseas. The Prime Minister has promised that this will be done. Even if the Leader* of the Government had not given this undertaking the ordinary competition in shipping would be sufficient to safeguard our position. Actually this was done before the establishment of the Line. The primary producers of Australia will be better served by open competition in ocean freights. Actually the only people for whom any concern is shown by honorable members opposite, are the 400 or 500 Australian seamen employed by the Line. If the unions had been reasonable in their treatment of the Line, and if ships had not been held up so frequently for trivial reasons, it is possible that we should not to-day be considering the disposal of the fleet. The management very quickly found it necessary to work in conjunction with the overseas shipping companies with regard to freights, and it. is regrettable to know that not so long ago it broke faith with the association. I had occasion, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee to examine one of the directors on this point, and when I asked him if, after having disregarded the decision of the association members of the Board still attended meetings of the association, he replied, “Oh, yes”. What would honorable members say about the representatives of a union if they obtained certain information at a conference and then made use of it outside ? The Line to be of value should be in a position to compete independently of any other shipping organization. It is commercially unsound to quote freights unless the probable return will show a profit or at least expenses. Something must be radically wrong if the Inchcape Line can declare a dividend of12½ per cent. on its operations whilst the Australian Commonwealth Line shows a loss of £500,000 a year. From an economic stand-point it is ludicrous to suggest that the Line has been responsible for keeping down freights. Australia has been at the tender mercy of overseas shipping companies before to-day. I am satisfied that we shall be in a better position without the Line, and that there will be a chance of reduced freights without risk of serious losses to the people of Australia. During the regime of the Scaddan Labour Government the allegation was made that the Millars’ Karri and Jarrah Timber and Trading Company was exploiting the people of Western Australia. True to its ideal of State-owned enterprises the Government engaged in the timber business, but it soon discovered that it was obliged to associate itself with the Millers’ Association to consult in respect of prices, &c. So must be the history of all State enterprises. That Government instituted other State-controlled activities, one being a shipping line, and that showed a loss of £70,000 or £80,000 a year to the taxpayers of Western Australia. One of the vessels in the service became obsolete and its replacement became necessary. The Government was faced with another ideal of the Labour party - the madeinAustralia policy - with which I agree if it can be competitively carried out. Quotations for a new vessel were obtained in Great Britain and Australia, and after deliberation the Government decided to purchase a vessel from England. The Trades Hall officials, I understand, foaming at the mouth,approached the Minister controlling the department and asked why he had acted disloyally to the policy. There were two ideals in conflict: State-run ships and Statemade ships. After the Trades Hall officials had exhausted their denunciation of the Minister, he replied, in effect, “Let us reason together. Our State Line is in great public discredit and is a burden upon the taxpayers. We cannot place any additional taxation upon them. If we buy an Australian vessel theopposition to the increased cost may be strong enough to put us out of office, so we have decided to stick to the ideal of a State shipping enterprise and to scrap the other.” Honorable members opposite are sticking like limpets to a rock to various ideals for Australia. I have no objection to Australian conditions, child endowment, and a thousand and one other things so long as we can afford them. We have to consider whether Australia, with a population of 6,000,000, and situated thousands of miles from the world’s markets, is justified in trying to maintain its high standard of living, when it cannot afford it or pay its way. This country cannot afford that standard, and, as a matter of fact, it is not so high as we think it is, because immediately an industrial award comes into force the purchasing power of the increased wage is automatically reduced. The worst feature is that Australia is placed in an insular position both in shipping and in manufacturing, and if that continues much longer we shall be unable, because of production costs, to dispose of our primary products in the world’s markets. During the history of the Bruce-Page administration there has been no more important decision than that to sell the Australian Commonwealth Line, and I hope that it will be the forerunner of similar actions so that Australia may be placed on a sound economic basis, enabling it to fill its waste spaces and to compete successfully in the world’s markets, to the ultimate benefit and blessing of the people of this country.

Mr STEWART:
Wimmera

.- I am glad of this opportunity to speak on a subject which, as has been stated by several honorable members, is of outstanding importance in the sense that millions of pounds of public money are involved. The question at issue affects vitally our overseas transport, and particularly the marketing of our primary products. If the

Australian Commonwealth Line is discontinued, it will mean the scrapping of an important arm of defence, and once that is done the position cannot be easily remedied since we can more readily scrap a line than re-establish it. A generous tribute has been paid to the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), from both sides of the House for establishing the Australian Commonwealth Line as a war necessity. He is certainly entitled to every credit for that action. I well remember that at that time he was applauded by the primary producers from one end of Australia to the other, because their products were being banked up in the ports of this country and no advantage could be taken of the high prices ruling in the world’s markets. Our Ca,nadian fellow producer’s were receiving 8s. and 10s. a bushel for their wheat, and we had in our ports millions of tons of wheat, being destroyed by weevil, and with no means of selling it.

Mr Manning:

– It was paid for.

Mr STEWART:

– What was the price received? Millions of tons were sold at 4s. 9d. per bushel owing to the impossibility of shipping it overseas. The freights were so high that it had to be sold at one-half of its market value.

Mr Prowse:

– What good did the ships do?

Mr STEWART:

– That is a rather ungenerous interjection by the honorable member for Forrest. I listened toa portion of his speech and also to the remarks of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), both of whom have adopted a fairly consistent attitude upon this issue. That is more than I can say of some other honorable members. Encouraged no doubt by the decision of the people which was given in somewhat abnormal circumstances, the Government has brought forward some extraordinary proposals since the last election. It seems to think that it can ride roughshod over the people, and when any protest is made it calmly declares that it has received a mandate from the electors. Where is its mandate for what it now proposes to do? I say most emphatically that it has received no such mandate. Has the Country party received a direction from the primary producers to support this proposal? I say that it has not.

Mr Seabrook:

– Has its members received any instructions to support the retention of the Line?

Mr STEWART:

– I was elected to this Parliament as a supporter of the Australian Commonwealth Line of steamers, and I have not received any mandate to assist in abolishing it. It is rather interesting to consider how this far-reaching decision was arrived at. When I was a member of the party which, in a spirit of generosity, I still designate the Country party, a combined meeting of Nationalist and Country party members was considered anathema. There was to be no political marriage in connexion with the composite arrangement. We occupied separate rooms.

Mr Killen:

– We still do.

Mr STEWART:

– The members of the Country party once said that they must keep their political virtue; that there must be no political adultery. It may be true, as the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen) says, that the members of the Country party still occupy separate rooms ; but when any important issues are at stake, these erstwhile opponents immediately get together. The members of the Country party said some time ago that its separate entity would always be preserved, but I think it is time the farce was ended. The decision to dispose of the Line was reached at one of such meetings, and members of the Nationalist party and Country party are now committed to that decision which as has been shown by the debate during the last two days, was reached without a knowledge of all the facts. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) made a most extraordinary interjection last evening, when he expressed surprise at the’ contents of certain cablegrams quoted by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). If I remember aright, the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) said that the right honorable member had disclosed confidential information which was not in the possession of the Government. Surely that information could have been obtained if the Government had sought it. Before the Government proposes to act in this way it should at least endeavour to obtain all the facts. Certain honorable members have decided to support the action of the Government in this connexion, although complete information is not before them. We have, however, the consoling thought that the disclosures which have been made may influence the Government when it attempts to dispose of these ships. 1 cherish the hope that when the full facts become known the Government will seize upon some later development to reconsider its decision. It may be said that something approaching a crisis is occurring in connexion with many of our exporting primary industries. They have to compete with primary products from Canada, United States of America, Argentine and Russia, which are much nearer to the large consuming centres of the world. A consideration of the causes of these difficulties leads to a discussion on very debatable points.

Mr Maxwell:

– The honorable member is on somewhat delicate ground.

Mr STEWART:

– I hope the honorable member is not suggesting that I am endeavouring to avoid the issue. I may mention the tariff, which, the honorable member for Fawkner will admit, is a debatable point, and one which I am not allowed to discuss on this motion. I have been waiting patiently for over a year for an opportunity to discuss that subject. The point I wish to make in connexion with the export of primary products is one which does not involve the primary producers alone. It is a matter of vital importance to this country, and a deplorable fact that the trade balance is against us. We are importing millions of pounds worth of goods more than Ave are exporting. In spite of our heavy payments for interest on loans, Ave ought to “be exporting tens of millions of pounds worth more than

Ave are importing. At this juncture when high freights are handicapping the producers Ave should not face the question of selling the ships of the Australian Commonwealth Line without a careful and impartial examination of all the facts. This debate has roamed into all kinds of unexpected channels, from the price paid for cattle stations in Queensland to enterprises in other parts of the Empire, but several principles have stood out like pinnacles. There are three important questions to be answered: - Is the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers being run at a loss? Does the Conference Line, if given the opportunity, exploit the people? Does the Australian Commonwealth Line prevent such exploitation? It is true that the Australian Commonwealth Line has incurred losses, but I am inclined to think that in their anxiety to find an excuse for taking steps to dispose of the Line, honorable members on the Ministerial side have deliberately exaggerated them and ignored the circumstances under which they have been incurred. They have applauded a statement made by one honorable member that the losses of the past are likely to be exceeded by those that will be made in the future. I combat the statement. The heavy losses of the past were due to a ship building programme and to the fact that the Line had so many unsuitable vessels.

Mr Paterson:

– But the losses have continued since the disposal of those unsuitable vessels.

Mr STEWART:

– The losses have not amounted to the millions mentioned by the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) in an interjection. Since the dead wood has been cut away and the most suitable vessels have been retained, the losses have been smaller.

Mr Bruce:

– Out of the loss of ?575,384 incurred last year only ?18,967 was due to the use of vessels other than the “Bay” and “Dale” steamers.

Mr STEWART:

– I do not know that it is possible to get an accurate balancesheet in regard to the trips one way, but the losses made by our Line of steamers last year were largely due to the partial failure of our export trade. Other lines of steamers have been affected by the same cause. This year, for instance, we shall be short tens of millions of bushels of wheat and hundreds of thousands of bales of wool. I come now to the question - Does the Conference Line, if given the opportunity, exploit the people? It is an incontrovertible fact that one of the blackest pages in British history was the manner in which the people of Great Britain were exploited during the war by the British shipowners. In the

Empire’s darkest hour, when men were giving their lives freely, the wealthy shipowners of Great Britain were deliberately exploiting the people of their country. Every rise in shipping freights meant an increase in the cost of living, and every increase in the cost of living meant a reduction in the purchasing power of the miserable pittance paid by the British Government to sustain the wives and children of the men who were fighting at the front. The Conference Line at that period was deliberately exploiting the wives and children of the very men who, on the high seas, were guarding their vessels from destruction.

Mr Maxwell:

– Would the honorable member say that a farmer who was getting 10s. a bushel for his wheat when ordinarily the price was 5s. a bushel, was also exploiting the people?

Mr STEWART:

– The circumstances are entirely different. If there had been any patriotism in the breasts of the British shipowners they would not have made the profits they did. In this connexion I wish to quote what Mr. Bonar Law, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in the House of Commons on the 24th May, 1917. The House was debating a proposal to increase the

Avar excess profits tax. The proposal was bitterly and even vindictively opposed by the shipownerswho were even then exploiting the people of Great Britain. Mr. Bonar Law said: -

Will the House try to consider the thing from the point of A’iew of perfect fairness, as I have tried to do. I do not think there is any one who knows anything about ships who would question this: that shipowners have been allowed to make profit directly arising out of the War which we. ought not to have allowed them to make. That is the first position I shall lay down. I do not know whether those who are actual shipowners will disagree; if so, I can say that I have some means of justifying the statement I am going to make. As a rule, during the three years which have elapsed since the War began shipowners have made the whole of their capital ; they have made the equivalent of 33 1-3 per cent., and that after paying Excess Profits.

Honorable Members. - Oh, oh!

Mr. BONAR LAW. Well my honorable friends opposite ought to know better than I do, for they are shipowners: but I am going to give to the House what I did not intend to do, and what will, perhaps, interest honorable members.

It so happens that when I was in business in Glasgow I myself had certain small investments in ships. When I mention the rate per cent, of profit the House will think that I must be a rich man. Perhaps I had better disabuse them of that idea. The total amount of the investment was only a few hundred pounds in each ship. I was a shareholder in fourteen ships. Taking the average of those ships, all of them paying very well, the rate of dividend I received last year was 47 per cent, after paying Excess Profits Tax. I do not say that that was typical of the whole shipping community.

Mr. Holt. They were capitalized at what value ?

Mr. BONAR LAW. They were capitalized at the value they cost. I do not know beyond that, but at all events, what I am going to say my honorable friends will understand perfectly well, and that is that for every one hundred pounds I put in I received fortyseven pounds last year after Excess Profits had been paid.

The newspaper report of that speech contained the following additional statement tha.t does not appear in the official report : “ Moreover the shipping companies have not divided the whole of their profits.”

Mr Watkins:

– Is the honorable member aware that those same people stopped the wages of their crews from the day that any of their boats were sunk by submarines ?

Mr STEWART:

– I do not know anything about that.

Mr Watkins:

– 1 do, for I had a boy dealt with in that way.

Mr STEWART:

– That was a disgraceful thing to do. My point is that it has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that, given the opportunity, there are no profits too high for these people to exact. The most shameful aspect of the whole case was that this went on while Britain was fighting the battles of democracy with her back to the wall. The next question that arises is whether the few vessels that comprise our Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers could do anything to prevent this exploitation of the people. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott), and some other honorable members who support the Government, have made sneering remarks about this so-called mosquito fleet of seven paltry ships. They have asked what seven ships can do against hundreds. I know something about ships and shipping. I say to the honorable members to whom I have referred that, if the Conference Line had not made the 10 per cent, reduction in their charges on both outward and inward tonnage, the holds of the Government ships would have been filled to overflowing, and we should have had cargo stacked high upon our wharves and in stores waiting for transhipment by them. Our primary producers everywhere would have been clamouring for the Government to buy more ships, and instead of having a fleet of seven vessels we should have had one of seventy vessels. Nobody knew this better than Lord Inchcape,’ and, as the cablegram which the right honorable member for North Sydney read last night indicated, that gentleman considered the Commonwealth Line as being far from a puny competitor. He regarded the activities of our vessels in such a serious light that he said that one of the two Lines ought to cease operating. He was not willing for the Conference Lines to continue their activitiesalong side of the Australian Commonwealth Line. That is my answer to the sneering remarks of honorable memberswho have spoken in favour of the disposal of our ships. The trouble is that honorable members have not been honest in their arguments.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr STEWART:

– Honorable members on the Government benches have posed as authorities upon shipping and the effect of combines, in a manner that was previously alien to them. I rather fancy that their eagerness in advancing their arguments merely disguises a strenuous endeavour to vindicate the action that the Government now proposes to take. The defence value of the Austraiian Commonwealth Line of Steamers has been insufficiently stressed. While it stressed the financial loss suffered by the Liner the Government made no promise of granting a subsidy to it. Is the Government not aware that the British Government subsidizes many of the leading shipping lines in Great Britain, to the extent of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Cunard Line, trading between Liverpool and New York, and

British and American ports generally, is heavily subsidized by the British Government. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that that Government also recently guaranteed the “ Band “ Line, trading between Great Britain and eastern American ports, to the extent of £1,800,000. The British Government recognizes the defence potentialities of the mercantile marine. As was mentioned by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), every one of these “ Dale “ and “ Bay “ liners can carry armament practically equal to that of the Sydney and Melbourne. The “Bay” liners are practically cruisers. This Parliament recently agreed to spend £5,000,000 on the purchase of two 10,000 ton cruisers. The interest on that sum, at 5 per cent., amounts roughly, to £250,000 a year, while the upkeep on . each vessel would be not less than £350,000, making a total of nearly £1,000,000 a year on the two ships, to which amount must be added depreciation. The Government sanctions, with equanimity, the expenditure of huge sums like that, yet it becomes extraordinarily agile in iti endeavour to avoid spending £500,000 a- year on such a valuable possession as the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. In time of war our Line could render wonderful service to the nation by carrying troops and produce. The Prime Minister has stressed the point that the Line is being disposed of because it is losing money. Even in 1921, when the Line was not a burden on the taxpayers, the right honorable gentleman was obsessed by the desire to dispose of the Line. He never had any time for it, whether it was financially successful or otherwise.

Mr Maxwell:

– Its continuance would necessitate the expenditure of very large additional capital.

Mr STEWART:

– That is so, but depreciation must be allowed for in conducting any enterprise, and no doubt the £500,000 lost each year includes depreciation. It is no wonder that the Line has not paid, in view of the domineering attitude of the Seamen’s Union, the way that it has been over-staffed, its divided management, and the unsympathetic attitude that the Government has adopted : towards it.

Mr Coleman:

– There has been no industrial trouble for two and a half years.

Mr STEWART:

– I admit that; but a section of the Seamen’s Union considered that the Line was a benevolent institution created for their special benefit. While they talked so glibly of their rights and of the necessity to maintain an Ausstralian standard of living, they failed to realize that beneath their feet was the produce of the men and women of Australia who would have to bear the burden they proposed to impose on their produce. The seamen of Australia did not give the Line a fair deal. Yet I say bluntly that the real explanation of the present move is the fact that this Government represents the big business interests of the community. The Government talks about selling the Line, and maintaining safeguards. What arrant piffle! Even if the Government obtained a guarantee signed by the board of directors of the purchasing firm to the effect that this and that would be done, and that they would not dispose of the Line, what would happen if the business went into liquidation or was absorbed by some other shipping concern? There could be no guarantee that that would not take place. The Government talks about keeping the ownership of the Line within the British Empire. Even if that project were carried out to the last letter the next time any of the vessels visited Australian ports we could see yellow or black faces looking over its rails.

I regret the terms of this resolution, although I shall support it. The issue has been made a distinct party one, and that should not be so. I believe there are some honorable members opposite who, whichever way they, vote, will deplore the passing of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and who have doubts as to whether it is wise to dispose of it. The party opposite is, outwardly, a united one. It was assembled in a room and a carefully prepared case was presented ‘ to it, setting forth only one aspect of the position. Either intentionally or unintentionally they were not given all the essential facts. That raises the question, to what extent may a committee of this House - I refer to the Public Accounts Committee - secure the possession of facts that are not available to other honorable members? I repre sent 50,000 electors. I have been sent here to voice their views and represent their interests. I consider that this is quite an improper procedure to adopt. Had the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) not read certain cablegrams last night, this House would not, have had before it any of the facts, despite the assertion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) that he will consider the advisability of having the full facts laid upon the table. An amendment demanding- the whole of the facts would, I think, receive the support of a majority of honorable members. Why should I debate this issue when information has been deliberately withheld from me? What sort of a farce are the proceedings in a National Parliament becoming!

Mr Fenton:

– If the facts had disclosed something against the Line, would they not have been given to the House?

Mr STEWART:

– Whether they are for or against the Line, I want to be placed in possession of them. I have the uncomfortable feeling that had all the facts been against the Line they would not have been withheld from us. It is clear that we- have been furnished with those that tell against the Line, but not all of those that are in favour of it.

Mr Charlton:

– If the motion had not been moved the honorable member would not yet have learned anything.

Mr STEWART:

– I want to know what action the Government proposes to take with regard to very important evidence, bearing upon the Line, which was taken by the committee in camera, and has not been placed before honorable members. As -a representative of the people of Australia, I consider that I am entitled to that information. I recognize that a loss of £595,000 is a very large one, especially in view of the serious condition of our finances. If all the facts show that it would be right and proper to sell the Line, I am quite prepared to follow them, and to vote accordingly; but I want to know what they are.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– During this debate honorable members have listened to two main sets of arguments that have been advanced by those who are opposed to the proposals of the Government and in favour of the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton). First of all, they are in favour of the State ownership of not merely shipping lines, but also every other public utility. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley), and other honorable members have considered the subject from that point of view. They are entitled to hold, express, and carry their opinions into effect to the extent that the people of the country will allow them to do so. There has also been an attempt to secure support for the motion by raising the bogy of Lord Inchcape as a peril to the Australian nation in the event of the magic shield, which the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers is said to be, not being available to ward off his attacks. The question has been asked by a number of honorable members, “What will Inchcape do with us?” The right honorable member for North Sydney, and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr.” Theodore) referred to Lord Inchcape in terms similar’ to those in which in olden days the Saracens referred to Richard I. in the presence of their children. We have been asked to exhibit ourselves to the world as a parliament and a people shivering in fear at the mention of this bogy. Surely that must excite the mirth of other countries. It has been suggested that Lord Inchcape is allpowerful, and exercises a controlling influence in the Conference, which, as everybody knows, is a fluctuating quantity, kaleidoscopic in character. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) has pointed out in his report on the Navigation Act that the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers itself has at different times been both in and out of the Conference. This man, at the mention of whose name Australia is asked to shiver has been unable to induce a general meeting of his own company to pass a motion to do certain things for that company within the past two weeks. This bogy loses some of its force when we realize that even Great Britain itself, which is dependent to a greater extent than any other nation upon sea supremacy for the maintenance of its food supplies and raw materials and the distribution of its manufactured goods, became mistress of the sea, and has been able to maintain that position without a governmentowned line of steamers. The Union of South Africa comprises a territory not quite so large as that of Queensland, and has a similar number of white inhabitants. Yet, as the right honorable member for North Sydney showed last night, it has been able to enforce the granting of certain conditions by the Conference. Nevertheless, the honorable member for Dalley said last night that despite the equal resources which he had behind him while he was Premier of Queensland, he was compelled to sign certain agreements because he wished to become a shipper. He read from a document which he endeavoured to induce honorable members to believe enforced a terrible agreement. The honorable member for Bourke cannot be accused of being a partisan for the Government. What were the conclusions at which he arrived after he had investigated the whole position two or three years ago? He then said that for the proper conduct of the shipping business it Avas absolutely necessary that there should be an arrangement of the sort to which the honorable member for Dalley objected. He pointed out that there is what is termed a “ tie “ in connexion with the Conference Line, and an agreement in connexion with the Commonwealth Line, and said that if there was to be anything like stability and a satisfactory service at decent freights each Shipping Line should have a clear indication as to where it could seek freights for at least a year ahead. The honorable member for Bourke gave no fewer than four reasons, y two of which were subdivided into three more parts to prove the wisdom, the propriety and the necessity for such action. Yet the honorable member for Dalley wished the House to” believe that he had quoted a shocking example of tyranny The right honorable member for North Sydney has argued that if the Commonwealth loses this Line it will have no shield, and will be absolutely exposed to attack. Are not the resources of Australia as great for defence purposes as those of South Africa or any other country against any combination ? It is difficult to say where the right honorable gentleman obtained the cablegrams that he read. Until to-day they were not in the possession of the Government and it had to ask for them to be produced. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) mentioned from other cables that Holt’s Blue -Funnel Line had succeeded in securing a definite concession of -Jd. a lb. on wool as the result of its own action. Such a position, according to the right honorable member, could not possibly arise; yet it did arise, thus giving the lie direct to his assertion.

I shall deal now with the position of the Commonwealth Line itself. It has been suggested that it has been instrumental in reducing freights. The honorable member for Bourke examined this question also, and I shall place on record what he said. It is as follows : -

The Imperial Shipping Committee urged that the “ deferred rebate “ tie of the Combine and the “ agreement “ tie of the Commonwealth Line could be used in “amicable concurrence.” It suggested that occasional shipments with one or the other should not be regarded’ as a breach of their respective “ ties.” It urged the two parties to go into conference and come to an agreement, if possible; if not, the committee would consider the position and. report. The conference took place as- suggested. There was no reference back to the committee. The Commonwealth Government Line and the British Shipping Combine agreed to work in “ amicable concurrence.” Rates are not lowered by competitive acts of the Commonwealth Line. - Nor are they as high as they would be if the Commonwealth Line did not exist. The Combine cannot raise rates to a level that will permit the Commonwealth Line “to pay, without exposing the exorbitant rates charged by black-manned vessels. The Commonwealth Line is therefore a public benefit.

To that extent, the honorable member said, the Australian Commonwealth Line had been a public benefit. The Combine, he averred, did not wish it to rise above the bread line, so that it would not appear that its competitors were making an extortionate profit by the use of black crews, and to that extent only the Line had influenced freights. That is the opinion of a member of the Labour party, who probably knows more about this subject than any other honorable member opposite. I now come to the freight rates in other countries that have not the benefit of government shipping lines. It has been suggested by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) that the possession of a government line is a sine qua non in the reduction of freights ; but a comparison of freights in Australia and other countries, between 1920 and 1925, shows that the percentage reduction in Australia has been less than in other parts of the world. What is the position regarding refrigerated space for the carriage of butter in New Zealand as compared with Australia? The usual charge is 4s. a box from both countries to the United Kingdom; but New Zealand producers receive, in addition, a 7£ per cent, discount. The Dairy Produce Export Control Board, by its concerted action in organizing the dairying industry during the last year, and not because of the existence of the Australian Commonwealth Line, has been able to secure a concession on all lines of 2£ per cent., when a given tonnage is sent overseas. Here are some figures given in the report of the Navigation Commission regarding freights in 1922 and 1923 which show substantial reductions where- there is no government shipping line: -

The 1927 edition of Brasseys Naval and Shipping Annual, an authoritative work, gives particulars of the estimated average steamer freights in the open market from the Tyne and the North Sea coast ports of England for the years 1920 to 1925 inclusive. The following are the figures for the first aud last years of the period mentioned : -

That is a list of freight reductions in other countries, not one of which has a government shipping line. The Australian figures, so far as I have been able to obtain them from the Commonwealth Statistician’s Quarterly Report are as follow : -

Mr Stewart:

– Give us the figures for 1920.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Honorable members always want something that they have not got. In countries where nogovernment Line operates, we find tremendous reductions in freight, while in Australia comparatively slight reductions have been made.

Mr Hughes:

– No advance has taken, place in Canada and the United States of America.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I shall give figures relating to the United States of America that will astonish the right honorable gentleman. I have always said that in, Australia the Government Line has had an infinitesimal effect on freights, because it has been impossible for it to compete owing to the small number of its vessels and the difficult industrial conditions applying to it as compared with overseas ships. Let us look at the effect of the Line on the interstate trade, where it should have had a remarkable influence, because there it competes in the carriage of both passengers and cargo, among a smaller number of vessels. In Australia, if anywhere, it should be able to defeat the machinations of the Combine. In 1921 the freight between Melbourne and Sydney was 203. a ton, and in 1922 the figures were the same. Between Melbourne and Adelaide similar freights ruled in both years. Between Melbourne and Fremantle the rate was 25s. in 1921, and 35s. in 1922; between Sydnev and Adelaide it was 17s. 6d. in 1921, and 25s. in 1922; between Sydney and Fremantle 30s. in 1921, and 40s. in 1922; and between Adelaide and Fremantle 22s. 6d. in 1921, and 30s. in 1922. The Line should have had a wonderful effect on the Australian rates if it could influence world competition to the extent suggested by many honorable members. Yet here rates have gone up while in other countries they have gone down. The right honorable member for North Sydney also said that if the Line were abolished Australia would be helpless, and at the mercy of the British Shipping Combine. Does anybody really believe that? Can that suggestion be supported for a second, or is it believable that we could not secure Britain’s help in resisting this Combine when we remem”ber Britain’s interest in the development of Australia, as shown last year by the imperial government’s provision of £1,000,000 for the Empire Marketing Board for the purpose of stimulating trade inside the Empire? Do honorable members recollect the rebate of interest that the British Government gives Australia in connexion with the migration loan of £34,000,000, a concession which amounts to over £7,000,000? Do they forget that the British Government pays one-third of the fares of all the assisted migrants sent to Australia? Yet honorable members dare to say that Australia will be left defenceless, and at the mercy of the rapacious wolves represented by the British shipping companies, and receive no assistance in the marketing of its primary products. Such a contention is absurd, considering that during the last three or four years we have received imperial preference of a substantial nature. In addition, the honorable member for Bourke referred in his report of the Royal Commission to the attempts of the imperial shipping committee to secure co-ordination for the regular and proper marketing of our products, the most favorable cargo rates, and the best utilization of the tonnage at our disposal. It seems to me that the two issues raised by honorable members opposite, and others who oppose the Government’s proposal, are unworthy of consideration. On the one hand we have those who desire to socialize everything; at the head of their party platform is the “socialization of the means of producing distribution and exchange.” But that bogy has been disposed of. The proposed discontinuance of the” Line should not be considered as raising the abstract question of government versus private ownership, nor should the national parliament stand in terror of any particular person or combine. The case of the value of the Line should be dealt with on its merits. Whatever one’s views may be regarding government ownership, the fact remains that Great Britain, the greatest maritime power the world has ever known, has built up her mercantile marine without the aid of government-owned ships. The retention of the Australian Commonwealth Line should receive serious consideration if it could be established, first of all, that it would lead to an improved transport service, that the losses associated with the running of it would be counterbalanced by benefits assured to the community, and that there is a reasonable prospect of the losses ultimately disappearing. If we were assured that its continuance would bring about a reduction of freights, that it would promote industrial peace along the water front by maintaining satisfactory conditions for the seamen, that it would stimulate the growth of the mercantile marine, and that we had the resources immediately at our disposal to develop and expand such a Line, the disposal of the .Line could not be justified. I intend to examine those matters so that the House may have an opportunity of judging the case on its merits, not according to party prejudice or any fetish of government or private ownership. It has been contended that our transport service has improved. I admit at once that there has been a considerable improvement in the amount of refrigerated space available in the “Bay” and “ Dale “ boats. Last year, the loss on the Line was £595,000. That loss has, up to the present time, been concealed, because the Shipping Board has been using its realized assets, brought about by the disposal of old vessels, to make good that loss; but we are now coming to the position when this Parliament every year will have to vote the money necessary to recoup that loss to enable the Line to carry on, if Parliament in its wisdom decides to retain it. We have to consider whether we are getting our money’s worth from the Line. In this connexion it is worth remembering that we have a contract with the Orient Shipping Company, which provides for the carriage of mails to Great Britain. A subsidy of £130,000 is paid to that company, one of the conditions being the provision of certain refrigerated space. Last year that company actually made available for exports from Australia no less than 2,500,000 cubic feet of refrigerated space, despite the fact that it is essentially a passenger service.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Similar space is provided by the Commonwealth Line.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Last year the Australian Commonwealth Line made available for overseas shipment some 6,000,000 cubic feet of refrigerated space. In the one case our mails are being carried, and we are receiving a monthly service, which is fairly fast, at a cost of £130,000 a year. In the other case we are losing £600,000 a year, and receiving in return 6,000,000 cubic feet of refrigerated space in a slower and less regular service. If a comparison were to be drawn, it would be in favour of our contract with the Orient Company rather than of the results from our own Line. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) yesterday dealt at some length with figures relating to the Line, but I submit that no good can come of quoting ancient history and the past profits of the Line. The fact remains that we have seven vessels, and it is costing the taxpayer something like £900,000 a year to maintain them, and pay for past losses of the shipping adventure.

Mr Hughes:

– How does the Treasurer arrive at that figure?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– It is true that the Australian Commonwealth Line when taken over by the Shipping Board was written down by several millions, but that does not get rid of the debt and the interest payable upon it. That sum, amounting to £300,000, has to bc found every year by the taxpayers of this country. In addition, we are losing £595,000 annually on the operations of the Line.

Mr Hughes:

– What has become of the profit of £5,000,000 in 1921?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I shall give the right honorable gentleman that information in a moment. The balance-sheet of the Line shows that the loss of £595,000 comes under three headings, one being interest on debentures. That interest, of course, would be saved, if we were able to sell the Line, say, for £4,000,000. The saving of interest at 5i per cent, on that sum, and per cent, paid into the sinking fund, would represent about £240,000. In addition, there would be the saving of £200,000 for depreciation, and a similar amount representing the loss of working the Line. The total saving would be £600,000. We are committed to a payment of £300,000 until we have wiped out the debt in past losses by payments to the sinking fund. That loss of £900,000 is an annual charge against the people of this country. The question is whether we are getting an adequate return for that expenditure. If it could be shown that we were receiving substantial reductions in freight and other benefits which far out-weighed the loss, no one would begrudge the expenditure on the Line; but if that cannot be shown, then it is wise and proper that we should not retain it. There has never been an economic basis for freights charged by the Line, either during or after the war. During the war there was no charge against the actual cost of running the boats to carry our produce overseas and to bring back manufactured goods. Although the ex-enemy vessels cost us nothing, up to 1923 they made a profit of £3,630,000. That may have been a good thing from the point of view of the taxpayers; but it was a bad thing from the point of view of the primary producers of this country, who found the money to make that profit. At that time the Line charged freights that were approximately the same as those charged by private shipping lines. The British shipping lines had to pay an 80 per cent, war-time profits tax, which may certainly have been a good reason for increasing freights. The Australian Commonwealth Line had to pay no such taxation, and yet its freights were approximately the same. It placed its profits into general revenue. That was an indirect method of taxing the people, and it should have been boldly stated that the primary producers and the shippers had made it possible for those profits to be made and paid that amount in indirect tax. There was no economic basis for the fixing of freights according to the cost of handling the goods. During the war the mere possession of this Line’ did not enable our goods to be placed upon the world’s markets. The Allies at that time took all precautions to ensure that every ship and every ounce of goods under their control should be used to the best advantage in order to maintain their fighting strength. Ve were unable to ship our apples overseas, simply because they were not required in England. The British Government bought our wool and wheat; but it was two or three years after the war before the whole of that produce could be delivered. Our own vessels were taken off the coastal trade. The Maheno, which traded between Sydney and Auckland, and also the Karoola, were converted into hospital ships. Another vessel that was specially built for the run from Vancouver to Sydney was converted into an auxiliary cruiser and called the Avenger. It did good work until torpedoed. The vessel that carried me from France to England came from the West-Scotland service. The Mauretania was used as a troop ship between the Mediterranean and England. The amount- of tonnage available for each allied country was allotted by the Admiralty. When the restrictions on shipping were lifted, we did reap some benefit from the Australian Commonwealth Line. The vessels obtained high freights and amply paid for the cost .of running. The rates charged by the Line were always in sympathy with those charged by the Conference Line. In 1921, Mr. Jowett, then a member of the

Country party, moved the adjournment of this House to discuss that subject. In 1919, the members of the Opposition raised the question whether the Australian Commonwealth Line was not profiteering in respect of the producers of Australia, because of the high freights charged by it. After the war, what was done to reduce the freights charged by the Line ? In 1923, the honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill), now Minister for Works and Railways, gave specific instances of freights charged. He pointed out, for instance, that the Victorian Wheat Corporation, a cooperative concern, handled the wheat of the Victorian farmers. It shipped some 726,000 tons of wheat from Victoria; 192 vessels were used, including 132 British, 45 foreign, and 10 Australian ; < 97 vessels carried full cargoes, and 124 carried, parcels. The Australian vessels carried approximately only 6 per cent, of the total wheat shipped that year. When chartering vessels, that corporation approached the Australian Commonwealth Line to ascertain whether it had a vessel available. At that time, the vessels of the Line were lying idle in Port Phillip and other ports of the Commonwealth. In many instances the Line refused to give a quote, the excuse being that it desired to secure more attractive cargoes. The freights ‘ in one year were as high as 175s. a ton. At that time the Commonwealth Line had over 60 boats at its disposal. In the year 1921-22, only 3 per cent, of the Victorian wheat exported was carried by the Line, and in 1922-23, of 283,000 tons of wheat shipped from that State, only 3 per cent, was carried in Commonwealth ships. I am credibly informed that the Victorian Wheat Corporation has always endeavoured to secure space on the Commonwealth Line, but was invariably told that space was not available ; in any case the rates charged by the Line were as a rule higher than those quoted in other quarters.

Mr Hughes:

– The Treasurer supported the Line at that time. He is forgetting that now.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I shall call attention to the change of mind of the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) in 1924. He has changed his opinion again since that time. Now I come to the period when the Line passed under the control of the Shipping Board. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey), who cannot be said to be a Government partisan, investigated this matter and declared -

Kates are not lowered by competitive acts of the Commonwealth Line. Nor are they as high as they would be if the Commonwealth Line did not exist. The Combine cannot raise rates to a level that will permit the Commonwealth Line to pay, without exposing the exhorbitant rates charges by black-manned vessels.

The balance-sheets suggest that that is exactly the position at the present time. The losses have always been just enough to prevent the Line from showing a profit, and I shall explain later why it never can make profits under present conditions. The people of Australia are now paying £600,000 a year to carry on the Line. It is evident that it has not reduced freights and that it is not likely to do so in the future. When the Shipping Board was constituted in 1923, there was approximately £2,000,000 worth of old tonnage available for . sale. The greater portion of it was sold, and all the proceeds have been used in connexion with the running of the Line. For that reason the accounts have never come before the House for proper discussion, the board being able to use the money realized by sales to recoup its losses and provide working capital.

Mr Watt:

– Did the Auditor-General permit that practice.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Yes. The accounts were always presented to Parliament, but they never came up prominently for discussion, because no appropriation was required to enable the Line to function. It was living on its own fat, but, unfortunately, all that fat has disappeared, and we must reconcile ourselves to big losses in the future, if the Line is to keep down freights, because the report of the Public Accounts Committee makes it clear that, owing to the different wages and working conditions, it can never be competitive with overseas Lines. The report states: -

It is estimated that the additional cost of running the seven steamers now in commission as compared with a similar number and class of vessels on British articles would approximate £220,000 per annum; if, therefore, the ‘ Commonwealth Line had operated with British rates of wages and conditions, its anticipated loss of £189,905 for the year 1926-27 would have been converted into a profit of £30,000. Taking Australian wages and conditions as £100, the committee was informed that, in respect of a vessel of 6,000 tons gross, British wages would be £32.41; American. £42.21; Swedish, £24.51; and Danish, £15.44; but, since those figures were prepared, Australian rates have been increased by 5s. per month per rating.

If we are to continue this Line, we must be prepared to run it at a loss, and the Commonwealth Shipping Board must know before laying down its programme and freight rates at the beginning of each year, how much Parliament will appropriate to enable it to operate. Unless Parliament votes money for .the Line it cannot function. If it is not to run at a loss, its freights will be so high that it will not be able to compete with the shipping of other countries. So, at the beginning of each year the Treasurer will have to ask the House to make provision for an anticipated loss of, say, £600,000. Such a proposal is not economically sound. If Parliament is to provide £600,000 to enable the Line to function, why should it not provide £1,000,000 or £6,000,000? Where is the spending to end? Why not say that the boats shall operate free of charge to their customers? There has never been a business basis for any freights charged by the Commonwealth Line from its inception to the present time. The losses in the past have been carried by the board because it had certain assets to sell: but in future we must be prepared to, (1), make provision for the losses that are sure to accrue; (2), find a certain amount of working capital for the Line; (3), find capital for the replacement of steamers, because up to the present sufficient provision for depreciation has not been made to replace lost or obsolete steamers; and (4), find capital to enlarge the fleet, because, if it is to continue, it must be worth while, and operate in a big way. How shall we get that money ? During the last few years the Commonwealth and State Governments, and every public authority, have been finding it increasingly difficult to get money for essential services. The Loan Council tries to secure enough money for the essential services of Australia, but every year is unable to supply all that is required. The loan expenditure of the Commonwealth and the States during the last five years has been:

Yet, notwithstanding the enormous borrowing many essential works in the Commonwealth had to be held up.

Mr Fenton:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the Treasurer is making a second budget statement, instead of debating the future of the Commonwealth Shipping Line.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– The Treasurer’s remarks are quite in order. He is referring to the financial position, and the difficulties that will have to be faced if the Commonwealth Shipping Line is to be continued.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I quite understand that these remarks are not pleasant to honorable members opposite. They have been strenuously advocating, during the last few weeks, that there shall be no more borrowing; but, if the Commonwealth Shipping Line is to continue, money must be borrowed to enable it to be carried on. Naturally, honorable members do not like to hear a statement of the real financial position. In 1924-25 the Loan Council discussed the applications of the various governments and decided that a reduction of the total was necessary. Subsequently, I was informed by the Victorian Treasurer that one result of the reduction was that about £1,000,000, which was urgently required for the further development of the enterprise controlled by the Electricity Commission had to be refused, thus delaying for several years the full reproductive operation of the scheme. I am frequently asked why the Government does not push on more rapidly with the construction of the Brisbane to Kyogle railway. That is a work of great moment to Australian development and our national economy; yet the rate of its construction is governed by the amount of money the Commonwealth can make available. All honorable members are aware of both Federal and State requirements that cannot be met because the money is not obtainable, and it is obvious that if money has to be borrowed to carry on the Commonwealth Shipping Line, many works that are essential to the development of Australia must be delayed. Moreover, our own experience, as does that of Canada and the United States of America, indicates that the more we extend the Line the greater will be our losses, and we shall have to find money not only for the building and replacement of ships, but also to recoup losses. Before proceeding to deal with the future, I shall remind the House of one reason why the Commonwealth Line has not been able to pay its way in the past. I have already said that if we could be assured that the losses incurred would bring compensating benefits to the Australian people, if the Line were reducing freights and producing industrial peace on the waterfront, and improving the conditions of industry generally, We could face a debit balance with some equanimity ; but, so’ far from promoting industrial peace, this Line seems to have been the apple of discord in the industrial arena. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) drew attention to the fact that less cargo is sent from Australia to Britain than from Britain to Australia ; and I ask him to answer truthfully whether that is not partly due to job control on the vessels, and trouble in loading them at the wharfs. Fortunately, since this Government decided in 1925 to try to deport certain fomenters of industrial trouble, and since the people affirmed decisively that they would tolerate no more mischief of that kind, and also since the passing of certain legislation, there has been comparative quiet on the waterfront. But consider what happened in 1924. The Fordsdale “was about to make its maiden trip. One would think that everybody who had the good of the Line at heart would have helped to send it out with flags flying and bands playing; but, because of job control, and the influence of Mr. Johannsen, the boat was held up; :it went down the harbour and was brought back again, and its departure was delayed for days. In the Sydney Morning Herald of the 19th March, 1924, it was reported that the assistant secretary of the Seamen’s TJnion, Mr. Johannsen, had stated at the Shipping Master’s office that he was there to prevent the Line from selecting the men required, and he challenged the right of the owners to pick their own men. That afternoon the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board felt impelled to make the following statement : -

The Seamen’s Union demands the right of selection of a crew for the Fordsdale, and the men selected from the members of the union by the board’s officers are being prevented from signing articles. The Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board is unable to delegate the selection of a crew for such valuable property as the Fordsdale to irresponsible union officials. The Fordsdale will be removed to Cockatoo Island, and will remain there until men the board considers suitable offer themselves for engagement.

On the 5th November, 1924, it was reported in the daily papers that the Commonwealth Line had come into conflict with the Seamen’s Union, and the Marine Stewards’ and Pantrymen’s Union, as a result of which both the Ferndale and the Moreton Bay would be delayed, and might be tied up indefinitely. The trouble had arisen through the refusal of the stewards on the Moreton Bay to watch over mental cases on the ‘way to England on the steamer’s previous voyage. It was found that a number of the members of the union did not concur in the action taken by the union officials, and had accepted employment, so that a sufficient number had been signed on to enable the Ferndale to make the voyage to the United Kingdom. The Ferndale should then have got away; but, during the morning, the wharf labourers refused to continue loading. At 1 p.m. a gang of unionists came to the conclusion that the stoppage was absurd and they commenced to load the refrigerated cargo. The Ferndale was despatched the following day. On the 6th November, 1924, the Sydney Morning Herald drew prominent attention to the fact that the Ferndale had been definitely boycotted by the waterside workers, and that valuable cargo had been lost to the vessel owing to the overtime strike and the action of the maritime unions in holding the vessel up for a crew.

Owing to the refusal of the waterside workers to work after 5 p.m., the unloaded portion of a large meat shipment had to be handed over to the steamer Barunga, which was being loaded by Dalgety & Co. Ltd., under the flag of the White Sar Line. This is the Line which honorable members opposite say is not on the British register; yet cargo which our government-owned ships were not allowed to handle at the time had to be given to it. The newspaper report stated -

Another 1,000 tons of cargo has been lost in Sydney owing to the hold-up of the vessel for want of a crew. The irony of the position is that the cargo which the waterside workers would not load after 5 p.m. was loaded on to the rival steamerRaranga by labour from the Shipping Labour Bureau.

On the 27th February, 1924, the Commonwealth Government liner Moreton Bay was held up owing to the strike of her stewards. On the 19th November. 1924, the Evening Sun, Melbourne, contained the following report: -

In spite of all the efforts by the management to establish the Line satisfactorily, themen who exist by the Line have ceaselessly campaigned to throw it out of gear, even to the jeopardy of their own livelihood. No other shipping line has had so much trouble with organized labour. For long every Commonwealth liner, on its arrival back in Australia, from a voyage overseas, was held up by some petty dispute, in face of the warnings that there is a limit to loss on the Line to which the country will submit. … In the hamstringing of the Commonwealth Line the waterside workers then took a hand. The first result of the Sydney overtime strike was to compel 500 tons of wheat consigned by a Commonwealth vessel to be left behind to be shipped by a non-Australian steamer worked by men of the bureau which the union was challenging. Another vessel of the Line, the Carina, was delayed in Melbourne just long enough to dissipate the profit which normally would have been made on the cargo it brought from Europe.

On the 23rd August, 1924, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Mr. A. F. Waters, president of the Employers’ Federation, had stated that -

The blacklisting of the 50 members of the late crew of the Fordsdale is one of the most remarkable cases of unionist tyranny on record. The Fordsdale is an Australian ship, which was built in an Australian dock by Australian workmen, for a State-owned Australian enterprise. When she was launched arrangements were made to man her with an Australian crew for her maiden voyage, and so it might be supposed everything about the ship, from her ownership and the laying down of her keel, to her ultimate going to sea, was in keeping with the principles so loudly advocated by local socialists.

On the 31st July, 1924, the Melbourne Age reported -

The Seamen’s Union has decided to declare the Commonwealth steamer Fordsdale black on her arrival from London. The men claimed the right to pick her crew when she sailed on her maiden voyage four months ago, but the management refused their dictation, and ultimately secured a unionist crew that was chosen by her captain.

On the 13th November, 1924, further trouble occurred over the Ferndale. It was reported in the Daily Guardian that -

It is anticipated that there will be a long struggle between the Australian Commonwealth Line and the Stewards’ Union. It is also certain, on present indications, that the Ferndale’scargo will be transhipped and sent on to England in vessels of other lines, which are loaded by shipping bureau men.

On the 15th August, 1924, the Melbourne Argus, in commenting on the settlement reached the day before in the dispute concerning the manning of’ the Commonwealth steamer Ferndale, said -

The settlement is a victory for the Line over the efforts of officials of the Seamen’s Union to introduce job control. Another significant feature is that the negotiations were taken out of the hands of the Seamen’s Union and conducted by officials of other unions, who are parties to the Sea Transport Group of the L abour Council.

From these, reports it will be evident that the great causes of this Line not paying are, first of all, the attitude that the Seamen’s Union has adopted towards it; and. secondly, the fact that it has not brought about the millenium of industrial peace that government ownership was supposed to inaugurate. It is argued that it is in the interests of the primary producers that this Line should be continued under its present management; but how any one can make that contention in the light of the facts that I have just outlined is beyond my comprehension. I can see no reason whatever why the taxpayers and primary producers of Australia should have to keep putting their hands into their pockets to pay the losses that are incurred in making comfortable homes available for members of the Seamen’s Union who do not appreciate what is being done for them. It is also argued that we should continue to run our ships in order that we may build up an Australian mercantile marine. In reply to the impassioned speeches that have been made to establish that point I need only say that more than half of the men engaged by the Line, and considerably more than half if we exclude the high ratings, are living in England. “We shall never establish an Australian mercantile marine by running ships that are operated by men who reside abroad. I have no quarrel with these people for living in England. All that I am concerned about is that we shall be given an honest return for the wages that we pay. When the Government decided to have its cruisers built abroad, there was a big outcry from honorable members opposite; but they seem to be taking an altogether different view on this matter. I ask whether we can ever expect to build up an Australian mercantile marine under present methods? When we commenced our shipping operations, six or seven years ago,, we had 64 vessels under our control. At present our fleet consists of only seven vessels. In the light of our experience it certainly is not worth our while to either build or buy more ships, for it has been proved that we are singularly inept in handling undertakings of this description. At one time Tasmania had a Government shipping business. In the course of four years she lost £231,000 through it, and an amount of £262,000 is still on the debit side of her accounts in respect to the venture. A government-owned trawling line was established several years ago by New South Wales. It was argued that even if we could not successfully run oceangoing steamers, we could anticipate reasonable success in the trawling business. What happened? Although we have some of the richest trawling areas in the world within a few miles of our coast, we were not able to make a success of the undertaking. The longer the trawlers were operated, the dearer fish became in Sydney. Early in 1923, the Nationalist Government of New South Wales discontinued trawling operations, and sold the ships to a private company. Since that time the business has been remarkably successful, and fish have become available at a reasonable price. An amount of £69,000 was lost when the trawlers were sold. These instances are typical of the experience of Australian governments in trying to control shipping operations. Canada has given a good deal of time and attention and spent a good deal of money on governmentowned steamers. When I was in that dominion two or three years ago, the Prime Minister introduced into Parliament a motion to authorize the sale of its vessels. At that time he would have been very pleased to dispose of them; but, unfortunately, the opportunity was lost. The Canadian position is somewhat different from ours in that the Canadian Government railways are obliged to compete with the privately-owned CanadianPacific line which is worked in conjunction with a line of steamersThey have many of their boats working on the great lakes, where they practically take the place of railways. The Canadian fleet was established on the termination of the Avar, when 63 steel cargo vessels were ordered. By the end of 1939 nineteen vessels had been delivered, and by the end of 1922 that number had been increased to 64 vessels. At the end of 1924 the number of vessels controlled was 57; but at the end of 1925 it had been reduced to 49. The Canadian Government shipping operations in 1920 resulted in a profit of more than $1,000,000, exclusive of provision for interest charges; but in subsequent years losses were incurred as f follow: -

The minority report of the Public Accounts Committee states that the losses for 1926 were £1,820,000. The directors of the Line have now proposed a reduction in the number of vessels to 37 and a writing down of the capital cost from $72,500,000 to $18,500,000. It Will thus be seen that a loss equal to about twothirds of the capital value of the ships was sustained last year. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) mentioned last night certain aspects of the situation in which the Government of the United States of America finds itself in regard to its government-owned ships. The right honorable member for North

Sydney told us yesterday that we should be wise to follow the example of America.

Mr Hughes:

– I said nothing of the kind.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– That is what I understood the right honorable member to say.

Mr Hughes:

– I referred to the number of vessels that the Government of the United States of America was operating.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The net allotments and appropriations for the construction of ships for the Government of the United States of America up to 30th July, 1927, were $3,620,965,426. The trading losses sustained in recent years have been as follows : -

The reduction in losses Avas practically proportionate to the reduction in the number of vessels controlled.

Mr Watkins:

– The Government of the United States of America intends to build more ships.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– It does not. On the 1st January, 1926, the idle shipping tonnage of the world amounted to 5,800,000 gross tons, while the idle tonnage of the United States of America amounted to 4,120,000 gross tons. Of the idle ships belonging to the United States of America, 458,000 tons Avas privately owned, and 3,652,000 tons government owned, while the Government controlled a further 10,000 tons. On that date the . Government of the United States of America owned 1,143 vessels, representing 5,523,230 gross tons. On the 31st December, 1926, the Government of the United States of America owned 940 vessels, representing 4,756,111 gross tons, while on the 1st July, 1927, it owned 881 ships, of which 568 were lying idle. Of the 350 ships which were disposed of in the United States of America during 1926, 199, having a tonnage of 813,820, were practically without market .value as commerce carriers, and were sold to the Ford Motor Company for scrapping purposes. The report on the United States Line of Steamers states -

The very substantial decrease in the number and tonnage of the Shipping Board is as it should be, i.e., in line with the objective that the Government get out of the marine transportation business at the earliest possible, moment.

The position in the United States of America is regarded as very serious. A huge amount of capital is sunk in the shipping business, and as was indicated by the Prime Minister, a loss of £600,000,000 has been sustained. In order to arrive at a satisfactory basis of action, the Government of the United States of America issued a questionnaire to the various Chambers of Commerce in that country, and the consensus of opinion was along these lines -

  1. A merchant marine is essential for the development and maintenance of our commerce and for our national security.
  2. If the merchant marine is to be privately owned under existing circumstances, some form of government financial aid is necessary.

A minority favoured permanent government ownership and operation -

  1. Under the present plan of Shipping Board operations of the fleet, the trade routes now existing should be continued, and desirable new ones should bc added and developed under the supervision and control of the’ United States.
  2. A definite policy of replacement, reconstruction, and modernization of American ships is necessary in order that they may successfully compete with foreign ships.
  3. Financial aid, which might be given by the Government, should not be in the nature of a direct subsidy, but should take the form of payment for services rendered, such as the carriage of foreign mail and the training of men in the naval reserve.

That was the considered opinion of all the prominent business men in the United States of America. They were satisfied that the time had arrived when an endeavour should be made to prevent further indebtedness being incurred by the merchant marine.

The honorable member for “Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) suggested that” the point of view of the Country party has changed. That changed outlook reflects changed public opinion throughout Australia. When the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers was inaugurated the Country party viewed it with friendship. In 1919 the Country party suggested that the profits of the Line should be devoted to its extension and to the provision of faster trips with more refrigerated space. In 1922 it was realized that there would be no more profits from the Line, and the platform, of the Country party then provided for an investigation into the affairs of the Line, to see what could be done to assist it out of its difficulties. The position was again reviewed in 1924, and a conclusion was arrived at very similar to that advanced by the business people of the United States of America. Two years ago the right honorable the Prime Minister made a definite statement of policy, and urged that the Line should be disposed of, as the losses were becoming intolerable. A futile effort was then made to sell it. Now it is realized that a definite step must be taken to dispose of the Line. Any thoughtful person must realize that the existing condition of affairs cannot continue. Even if the present management were replaced, there is no guarantee that a new management would do better. The Commonwealth Government is endeavouring to develop our mercantile marine activities, and I instance its association with the Orient Line as an example. Not only will such -action afford relief to the taxpayers of Australia; it will assist the primary industries of this country. State enterprise kills initiative, and forces some of our finest brains out of the country. If this Government does anything to encourage Australians to develop private enterprise, including overseas transport, it will do something that will build up Australian industry and make this country a more and more important bulwark of the British Empire.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- It seems to me that the longer this debate continues, the more, camouflage the defenders of the Government employ in -their endeavour to disguise the situation. The speech of the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) embraced shipping ‘ matters pretty well over the whole world, but the honorable gentleman carefully evaded the problem that confronts this House. Like other speakers on the Government side of the House, the honorable gentleman first of all ascribed the losses of .the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers to the fact that the trade unions of this country had tied up the ships. Whether we agree or disagree with the actions of the seamen, it must be admitted that the trouble in the Line was confined to individual ships. There was never, as with private concerns, a general strike; the dispute arose not so much over wages and conditions as over the pin-pricking tactics employed by officers.

Mr Gregory:

– The question was, who should control the Line, the union or the owners.

Mr WATKINS:

– That was not so. There are honorable members opposite who would like to see our seamen return to the days when they were practically slaves; when they were compelled to exist on weevily biscuits and cornedpork and beef, which had been carried round the world. They imagine that the Line cannot be made to. pay unless the men are reduced to the lowest level. They never take into account bad management and wasteful expenditure. We have heard no complaints from honorable members opposite because the chairman of the Line received £1,000 a year more than the Prime Minister of this country, while his codirectors received £3,000 a year. I say nothing against the ability of those gentlemen, but I object to all the charges being levelled against the crews, merely because they secured decent conditions. Honorable members opposite would have the country believe that because we have a Commonwealth Line we must necessarily have industrial trouble. Shipping has been affected by industrial trouble not only in Australia, but throughout the world, privately-run shipping companies being affected to a far greater extent proportionately than the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. Two and a half years ago the British Empire was faced with the great strike of British seamen. The shipping companies concerned, although making 331/3 per cent. profit, wanted to inflict a reduction of wages on their seamen, even though those men were 13,000 miles away from home at the time. It is well known to every honorable member in this House that, the world over, both privatelyowned and Government-owned ships have had a rough time since the period of the Great War. It is merely side-stepping the issue to endeavour to attribute all the troubles of this Line to Government ownership. Success in everything depends upon the co-ordination of affairs, from the manager to the lowest paid workman.

If the Line were placed upon a proper basis it should not only continue to give the benefits that it has already given to the people of this country, but also pay its way. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), has said that the interim report of the Public Accounts Committee represented only a temporary opinion. He forgot to mention that there was only one witness who until then had not been examined. Despite the assertion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), the Treasurer (Dr. Page) and other honorable members, there is in the final report of the committee the admission that savings have been effected, that the Line has been of benefit to the primary producers, and that it has brought about reductions in freight. The honorable member for Forrest signed that report; yet he now says that the Line has not been instrumental in bringing about any reduction. He went further, and claimed that the witnesses were partisan and interested in the Line. Although he had a good deal to say about the attitude of the Seamen’s Union and the wages which are paid, I find that not one representative of a trades union gave evidence. Among the names of the witnesses are those of Mr. Angliss, meat exporter, of Melbourne; Mr. Jones, superintendent of Snows Limited; Mr. Neal, cartage contractor to the Dunlop Rubber Company of Australasia Limited; and Mr. Thompson, Eastern merchant, Melbourne. They are not officials of the Line; yet they are in favour of its continuance. In the King’s Hall the other evening I had a conversation with a Melbourne gentleman who is largely interested in the export of canned fruits. He told me that a certain vessel of the Government Line had been directly responsible for the reduction of freight on canned fruits from 70s. to 50s. That is the evidence of a person who has had dealings with the Line and is acquainted with the facts. Like the Canadian and American governments, we have sustained losses on the running of our Line; but not an honorable member opposite has been fair enough to admit that from the time of its establishment it has had to contend against the biggest Shipping

Combine the world has ever known and its loss has been less than that of any other similar Line. We have been informed that our seven ships carry only a small percentage of the inward and outward cargo, and thus do not interfere with the business of the Combine. The cablegrams that have been read prove the contrary to be the case. Although all companies are launching more modern vessels and ours, the Prime Minister states, will soon become obsolete, it is undoubted that to-day they are the fastest cargo boats afloat. They have established records in the carriage of perishable goods from Australia to England. It is a most peculiar thing that they have been diverted to the west coast of England, where the trade is unprofitable. Whoever instigated that move had not at heart the interests of the Line. Instead of subsidizing private companies to carry our mails to other parts, why should not the Commonwealth Line be given a share of that business? We are being asked to place our exporters at the mercy of foreign ship-owners. From the time that the first ship arrived in Australian waters the policy of our governments has been to so arrange their railway systems that all goods from each state will flow to one port, thus avoiding the necessity to call at different ports. Brisbane had to agitate for years to get a contract boat to call at that port, because the conditions were dictated by the ship-owners, and we had either to take what was offered or go without. The accursed rebate system has prevented shippers in both England and Australia from patronizing Commonwealth vessels. It is true that at times Commonwealth vessels have run with practically empty bottoms; but even so Australia has benefited to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The primary producers should seriously consider a few of the home truths that have been uttered by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart). For example, during the war their wheat was allowed to remain in Australia to be eaten by weevils, and we had to purchase vessels to get ourselves out of trouble. It is now proposed to hand over the producers of this country to philanthrophists who, during the war, plundered the people of Great Britain by making excessive charges. They did not increase the wages or improve the conditions of theseamen. I know from bitter experience that when a boat was submarined the wages of the men were stopped from the very hour, she went down. That was the action of these philanthropists who, we are told, will look after the carriage of our goods. We are told that the foreign shipping companies will provide competition to prevent the British Combine from increasing freights. I recall that a. member of the British Cabinet is visiting us, and preaching Empire trade. We are informed that the protection of our primary producers will depend in future not upon an Empire shipping company, but possibly upon the -shipping lines of France, and even Germany, with whom . we were recently bitterly at war. This Government has won election after election on a “ Win-the-war “ cry, and yet we are asked to believe that our former enemies will stand by us, and help to rer duce the freights charged to the primary producers.

Mr Manning:

– Does the honorable member suggest that foreign countries should not be permitted to send their ships here?

Mr WATKINS:

– I make no such claim; but we should not clear the seas for them. Australia is an island continent, and we should be a maritime people. Britain has become a great maritime power, because, as an island people, she had to send her goods abroad. The only nations that have succeeded in building up a great export trade are those that have established their own shipping lines. Something has been said of the manner in which Germany built up her mercantile* marine. She almost captured the world’s trade prior to the war, not only by subsidizing ships, but also by providing additional subsidies to encourage manufacture on board the vessels. Nails, for instance, were made while the ships were on the high seas. We desire to ensure the carriage of our primary products to the markets of the world; but the hand of Inchcape has caused honorable members opposite, from the Prime Minister downwards, to alter their views. Although our ships are upto date, they are to be sold because the

Government is prepared to hand the business over to the shipping octopus. The Line would have made profits if it had agreed to the requests of the Combine to advance freights; but it preferred to conserve the interests of the primary producers. To my mind, this proposal is one of the biggest acts of political treachery that has come under the notice of the House. In the case of the Commonwealth Woollen Mill, which was sold when it was making large profits, the question of whether it was a paying concern did not come under consideration. The Government would have sold the Line in its own time if it had been showing a profit. I maintain that, although it has apparently lost money, the people generally have been ‘ repaid handsomely for the outlay. During its early period the Line made a profit of £5,006,000, and the Treasurer has not told us what was done with that money. A private shipping company would have distributed that profit over years of depression. The Canadian, United States, and South African Governments are taking measures to protect their shipping. When private companies have losses they do not go out of the business, but they continue in the hope that good times will be experienced. The primary producers will regret the proposed action of the Government for the rest of their lives. They will find that the opponents of the sale of the Line, and not the so-called farmers’ party, that has been absorbed by the Nationalists, are their friends.

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

.- Much time has been occupied on both sides of the House in an attempt to show that the establishment of the Line was essential to the welfare of the primary producers. The main point now to consider is whether there is sufficient justification for its continuance. The only way to form a reliable judgment is to study the history of the Line. No doubt it justified itself for a number of years, and proved an asset ; but with the limited tonnage now composing the Line an unbiased person must recognize that the interests of the country would best be served by the Government now going out of the shipping business. The Leader of : the Opposition referred to the

Rayson process of chilling meat, and remarked that, if the Government provided facilities for the carriage of chilled meat, we should regain our lost trade. The fact is that the trade was not lost through a lack of shipping facilities. Australian frozen meat sells on the London market as well to-day as that from other countries, but the price is unprofitable. It has been unprofitable for so long a period that the pastoralists have reduced production.

Mr Scullin:

– But the Argentine has secured a big trade in chilled beef.

Mr MANNING:

– The producers in the Argentine market an article of high quality that could not be produced in Australia, except at great cost, and the prices now ruling on the London market are unprofitable to its producers, who have spared no money in improving their herds. Many of them are now using their ranches for other kinds of production in order ‘ to make their land profitable. That position cannot continue for ever. When a commodity is sold below the cost of production, distress to the grower is inevitable. Experiments have been made with the Rayson process. Mr. Rayson had considerable difficulty in obtaining facilities for testing his process, and ultimately they were given, not by the Australian Commonwealth Line, but by the Port Line. While in London I had the advice of the Commonwealth Veterinary Officer, Mr. Ross Grant, who is regarded by those in authority in Great Britain as one of the best men that Australia has sent there to supervise the export meat trade. I also had the advice of the representa.tative of the Australian Meat Council, Mr. Hassan, and of the chief veterinary officer of’ the London municipal authorities in control of the Smithfield markets, Lt.-Col. Dunlop- Young. Those three gentlemen were emphatic that although there had been faults in the consignment of chilled meat sent to London under the Rayson process, all of them could be rectified.

Mr Scullin:

– Did not Mr. Rayson fit out the Port boats at his own expense, and soon afterwards that Line was taken off the route ?

Mr MANNING:

Mr. Rayson contributed towards the expense, but it would have been more profitable to the Port Line to fill its holds in the ordinary way. The fact remains that Mr. Rayson received no assistance from the Australian Commonwealth Line. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) said that it was essential that we should regain our lost trade, and that we should have facilities for exporting chilled meat to London. The holds of vessels of the Aberdeen and White Star Lines are already fitted out for the transport of chilled beef. Those Lines have anticipated the Australian chilled beef export trade, and are prepared to engage in it provided that they can obtain consignments large enough to fill a refrigerated hold.

Mr Scullin:

– I doubt whether the holds of those vessels are properly fitted for the carriage of chilled beef.

Mr MANNING:

– I assure the honorable member that that is so. It is interesting to study the history of beef freights. In 1918 the freight was as high as 2$d. a lb. In December, 1921, that rate was reduced by mutual agreement to If d. a lb. In no instance can the Australian Commonwealth Line claim to have been responsible for reductions in freight on the carriage of beef from Australia to Great Britain. In 1922, the freight was reduced to 11/8d. a lb. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), who was then Prime Minister, was responsible for that reduction. At that time prices in Great Britain were so low that the expensive treatment and export charges’ at this end made the trade unprofitable. The Government was therefore asked to give a bounty on the export of beef during that season. It agreed, on two conditions: First, that the shipping companies reduced their freight by id. a lb.; and, secondly, that the meat works reduce their charge by a similar amount. That was agreed to, and the Government paid a subsidy of id. a lb. to the producers. In 1923, the freight was reduced from lid. to Id. a lb. On that occasion we approached the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), who was prepared to continue the bounty provided that a further reduction of id. was made. In 1924 the freight was reduced to Id. a lb.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In that case, the Government assisted the producers.

Mr MANNING:

– This Government has always helped the producers when necessary. In 1925 a further reduction was made. At that time I was the chairman of the Australian Meat Council, which is now defunct. On it were repre- sentatives of the growers and the exporters. As chairman I headed a deputation to the Commonwealth Shipping Board in January of that year, asking for a further reduction in freight. We were told by the board that a reduction was absolutely impossible, because the Line was running at a loss.

Mr Maxwell:

– Did the whole of the shipping companies agree to the previous reductions ?

Mr MANNING:

– Yes. The Government held the upper hand in each case, because, unless the bounty were given, no meat would be exported. I was one qf those who approached the Overseas Shipping Committee, and was successful in obtaining a reduction in freight on the second occasion. I well remember -me of the representatives on that committee saying that he did not wish to be in the position of having to fill refrigerated space with wheat at a freight of 35s. a ton.

An Hon. Member. - Did that reduction apply only to beef? ;

Mr MANNING:

– Reductions were made in mutton freights, but our principal argument was in favour of a. reduction in beef freights. Until recently mutton freights have always been higher than beef, because the prices realized were more remunerative. The Overseas Shipping Committee, who were. ap;proached by a delegation from the Australian Meat Council shortly after they, waited on the directors of the Commonwealth Line, granted a reduction of id. a lb., making the rate $d. a lb., and that was finally reduced to d. a lb. This last reduction was the direct result of negotiations with the Blue Funnel Line. That is the history of beef freights since the war. It has been said that no country can become -great unless it. has a mercantile marine. - In Australia we have set up a standard of living probably higher than that existing in other countries;, and it is certainly higher in respect of our mercantile marine. We have been able to carry on our internal industries because of our policy of protection, but that cannot be applied to the Australian Commonwealth Line. We have to enter into competition with the shipping of other countries, and there is no possibility .of doing that successfully. The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) has rightly pointed out that the Line is a burden on the taxpayers to a greater extent than the actual annual loss of £595,000, because interest has still to be met on the capital which has been written off. The honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Gardner) pointed out that by meeting the loss on the Line we were not establishing a new industry. The report of the Public Accounts Committee shows that the personnel of the Australian Commonwealth Line is 1,034. The loss ‘last year was £595,000. If we divide that amount by the personnel we shall find that the cost of maintaining each man is £575. Even had the men been paid no wages at all, the Line would have been run at a loss. Of the personnel 864 receive a maximum wage of £20 a month, a great number receive £16 a month, and others les3. Those figures show that the Commonwealth Shipping Line cannot be continued without imposing a very heavy load on the taxpayers. As has been pointed out by the Treasurer and others, the taxpayers have not been brought face to face with the losses sustained by the Line, because they have been paid out of the proceeds of the sale of old ships, but they will come to a full realization of them if, next year, when the budget is being framed, provision has to be made to meet an operating loss of £500,000 or £600,000, as well as for the purchase of new ships. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) spoke of what he termed “sneering references’” by ministerial members to the small proportion of goods carried by this Line, and then gave free rein to his fertile imagination regarding future happenings. We must, however, deal with this subject on a basis of known facts. Speaking as a primary producer, and realizing that prac- tically no wheat, and only very little wool, has been carried by the Commonwealth fleet, and that the refrigerated tonnage on overseas boats coming to Australia, is doubly sufficient for the perishable produce we have to export, I have no hesitation in saying that the best interests of the producers will be conserved if the Government disposes of the Line. The great majority of the producers are already of that opinion.

Mr Stewart:

– Upon that point we differ.

Mr MANNING:

– It is remarkable that two of us, with interests almost identical, should hold views so entirely different. I have no antagonism towards government enterprises. I realize that many public services necessary to the advancement of the country can be adequately rendered only by government enterprises. It is futile to say that we make a fetish of private enterprise. Any man with common sense knows that railways and postal, telegraphic, and telephonic services must be controlled by the Government in the interests of development. I was struck by the statement of the Treasurer that, notwithstanding the huge expenditure of loan money by Commonwealth and State governments during the last five years, many essential works had not been proceeded with because of lack of funds. It would be much better for the country if the money necessary to keep the Commonwealth Line going were diverted to those important public works with which the various governments are at present unable to proceed. After the fullest consideration I have come to the conclusion that no appreciable advantage would accrue to the primary producers from the expenditure of upwards of £500,000 annually to recoup the losses on the Commonwealth Line. If, by keeping the Line in opera- ‘ tion, we could bring about a reduction of freights and a definite advantage to the primary producers, I would have no ‘hesitation in supporting a liberal subsidy; but I do not think that such results would accrue. Other countries may be able to afford to subsidize govern- 1 ment-controlled shipping lines; but, having regard to the existing conditions in Australia, I think the sooner we dispose of the Commonwealth Line upon the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister, the better it will be for our people.

Mr COLEMAN:
Reid

.- The honorable member for Macquarie has made several wild statements which he did not support with data.

Mr Manning:

– Name one.

Mr COLEMAN:

– The honorable member referred to the adequacy of the refrigerated space available on ships other than those of the Commonwealth Line, and also suggested that the management of the Line was not agreeable to a reduction of freights on frozen meat.

Mr Manning:

– Did I not afford proof of that? As chairman of the Australian Meat Council I led the deputation which waited upon the Shipping Board.

Mr COLEMAN:

– Such a statement called for more complete proof than the honorable member has afforded.

Mr Manning:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for Reid is disputing the statement which I made as a result of my own knowledge, and I ask that the honorable member be required to withdraw what he said. He was not in order in saying that my statement was incorrect and in refusing to accept my word.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member for Reid made a statement that is offensive to the honorable member for Macquarie the latter may ask that it be withdrawn, but if the honorable member has been merely misrepresented, he may put himself right by a personal explanation later.

Mr Manning:

– I ask that the statement be withdrawn.

Mr COLEMAN:

– I have not impugned the veracity or personal honour of the honorable member, but I propose to show by statistical evidence that he was not warranted in saying that the Commonwealth Line adopted an unsympathetic policy towards refrigerated cargo. However, turning to the subject of the motion, I approach it as an Australian who has served on Australian, New Zealand, and American ships, and was for over eight years associated in an official capacity with the much abused and maligned seamen’s union. Only a person with the mentality of an earthworm could ignore the importance of shipping communication to an isolated country like Australia. I have noted with shame the joy with which some Ministerial members have attacked the Commonwealth Line and the general conditions under which it has operated. After all, the true test of the Line’s usefulness, is whether it has assisted the primary producers by the cheapening. of freights. Only the national aspect of the matter is worthy of consideration, and I am frankly amazed at the attitude of the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), who this afternoon reflected on the honesty of various persons. Yet he and the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) appended their signatures to a report which included the following statement -

Confidential details placed before the committee indicated that the efforts of the board, had Icd to substantial reductions in freight, and that on other occasions its refusal to’ agree to increases proposed - in one instance by both British and foreign ship-owners - had been successful.

That they can, after signing that statement, declare that the Commonwealth Line wa3 not responsible for reducing freights, is beyond my comprehension. Men who adopt such contrary attitudes may be justly accused of doing something that is intended to mislead the House or of inconsistency gravely approaching political dishonesty. Apart from the findings in the committee’s report; the empty and discredited statement that the. Line ha3 not reduced freights, has been: effectively refuted by the confidential, cable disclosed hy the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). I do not, however, pin my case to that argument alone; I propose to look at the matter from another angle. Certain information which has not been previously presented to the House has been placed in my possession, and I feel sure that it will influence the judgment of honorable members who are prepared to consider the matter impartially.

Mr Forde:

– If honorable members opposite were free, they would probably vote for the motion.

Mr COLEMAN:

– Yes. The honor, able member for Wimmera has properly said that if honorable members opposite are not prepared to censure the Government for having failed to put the facts fully before the House, they should at least formulate nn amendment demanding complete information before they decide to dispose of the Line. They continue to profess doubts as to the accuracy of the statement that the Commonwealth ships have kept down freights. New Zealand may be fairly compared with Australia. The two countries are almost equi-distant from the United Kingdom, but, whilst Australia has the Commonwealth Shipping Line, the New Zealand Government does not control any overseas shipping, and I have figures that conclusively prove that the New Zealand primary producers are being exploited and at a disadvantage through the lack of State-owned ships competing with those of the Conference Line. I ask honorable members to examine these figures with due seriousness and attach to them the weight they deserve. The Prime Minister has repeatedly referred to the necessity for adequate, suitable, and efficient refrigerated space for Australian export cargo. The honorable member for Macquarie told us a pitiful story about the condition of the meat industry, owing to the seasonal and other misfortunes with which it has been confronted during recent years. I propose to examine the respective freight rates for refrigerated cargoes between Australia and the United Kingdom and New Zeaalnd and the United Kingdom, to show that but for the existence of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers the meat. industry, as well as a number of other industries, would be in a considerably worse position than they are in to-day.

Mr Gregory:

– What is the source of the honorable member’s figures ?

Mr COLEMAN:

– I have obtained the figures from an authoritative source, and I have no doubt whatever as to their accuracy. I regret that at the moment I cannot givethehonorable member for Swan the actual reference, but I am willing to supply him with the data subsequently. The refrigerated freight rate for rabbits from New Zealand to the United Kingdom is 10s. per ton more than the rate from Australia to the United Kingdom, the respective figures being 80s. per ton measurement, and 90s. per ton measurement. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook) never loses an opportunity to refer of the unsatisfactory position of the Tasmanian apple growers. I assert without fear of contradiction that their difficulties would be greater than they are but for the existence of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. For the freight for apples from New Zealand to the United Kingdom is 6d. per bushel case more than from Australia to the United Kingdom, the respective rates being 3s. 6d. and 4s. The freight on eggs from New Zealand to the United Kingdom is 27s. per ton measurement more than from Australia to the United Kingdom, the respective rates being 135s. and 108s. Comparative rates for poultry are 150s. per ton measurement and 108s.

Mr Maxwell:

– Are these the rates which prevail to-day?

Mr COLEMAN:

– They are. I am convinced that these figures will be read with a great deal of interest by the primary producers of Australia, whose so-called representatives in this chamber are maintaining that our Governmentowned steamers have not effectively controlled freights. From the point of view of Australia, the three most important commodities for which we require refrigerated space are lamb, mutton, and beef. The rate for frozen lamb from New Zealand to the United Kingdom is 5s.10d. per ton weight more than from Australia to the United Kingdom. The honorable member for Macquarie stated that his representations had no relation whatever to mutton. Perhaps he will tell us that the Conference Line, out of the generosity of its nature, reduced its rates.

Mr Gibson:

– What are the rates per pound ?

Mr COLEMAN:

– The rate for mutton from Australia to the United Kingdom is1d. per lb. and from New Zealand to the United Kingdom, 1 3/32d. per lb. I shall be glad to give the Minister a full statement of these figures if he desires to have them. The charge formutton from New Zealand to the United Kingdom works out at 17s. 6d. per ton more than from Australia to the United Kingdom. The comparison is still less favorable in relation to beef, for the difference is £1 3s. 4d. per ton weight in favour of Australia. The disparity is emphasized when we remember that the standards of living in New Zealand are considerably lower than ours.

Mr Forde:

– These figures will make most interesting reading for the farmers.

Mr COLEMAN:

– That is so. Honorable members who sit on the Government benches have referred contemptuously to the influence of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers on freights; but they will find it extremely difficult to make an effective reply to these figures.

Mr Maxwell:

– Can the honorable member give us any information as to the rates which existed prior to the establishment of the Australian Commonwealth Line?

Mr COLEMAN:

– I have not that information available. The figures which I have given ap,ply to-day, and I challenge any honorable member opposite to discredit them. I know that they will bear the closest possible examination. U Australian consignors had been obliged, during the last financial year, to pay the New Zealand rates on their refrigerated cargo, they would have paid £239,000 more than they actually did pay to get their products to the British market. The extra payments would have been as follows :- Rabbits, £8,055; eggs, £42,500; apples, £66,375; lamb, £6,059; mutton, £7,729 ; and beef, to which the honorable member for Macquarie made such pathetic references, £108,838. Every honorable member knows that a serious shrinkage occurred in our exports of these commodities last year. In fact, we sent abroad only about half the normal quantities. Applying my figures to the previous financial year, we find that under the New Zealand rates our producers would have paid something like £400,000 more than they did pay for the transport of their refrigerated cargo. If there is one thing that Australian producers require more than another at present, it is adequate and suitable refrigerated space. That which the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers provides is of a higher standard than that which is made available by its competitors. The honorable member for Macquarie stated that it was of supreme importance to us that we should find markets overseas and be able to tranship our products to them in first class con di- tion. The Government has recognized that a duty rests upon it to assist pro,ducers to market their products satisfactorily, for during the last four years it has spent £141,572 on meat export bounties. The cattle export bounty last year amounted to £4,910. An amount of £129,000 was spent in assisting producers to market their canned fruits. We spent more than £2,000,000 in bounties on various products, not forgetting the enormous sum that was spent on the wine bounty. Seeing that the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers is waging a ceaseless freight war against the unscrupulous Shipping Combine, which has spread its tentacles throughout the world, it is surely worth the same consideration as the purely local wineproducing industry. Assistance to the Aus? tralian Commonwealth Shipping Line would benefit the whole Commonwealth) while the enormous amount that we arespending on the wine bounty assists only a comparatively small handful of people. The Line performs a more vital national service than a purely localized industry. In the circumstances I cannot understand why honorable members opposite should be so persistent and insulting in their endeavour to belittle the activities of this great national undertaking. Our various primary industries are capable of illimitable expansion provided that their products can be marketed at a reasonable cost. For instance, the imports to .Great Britain for one year of certain foodstuffs were as follow: - Beef, 14,115,000 cwt. ; mutton and lamb, 51,355,000 cwt.; and apples, 7,S60,000 cwt. That country also imported a huge quantity of eggs. In my opinion there is an obligation upon the Government to do everything within its power to ensure - that our producers shall have suitable shipping facilities and reasonable freights. If possible freights should be reduced below the present level. I am sure that if our steamers are sold, and subsequently an increase occurs in the freight rates, the honorable member for Macquarie andthe <meat interests that he represents will be rushing to the Government for an increased bounty to meet the increased freight charges. The attitude that honorable members opposite have adopted on this subject appears to be riot only illogical, but absurd. It cannot be truthfully denied that u:=der government ownership our shipping Line has conferred inestimable benefits upon Australia, both during the war, when it was invaluable in contributing to the successful issue of the conflict and the marketing of our products, and since the war, when it has done so much to stabilize and reduce freight rates. I have no doubt whatever that if we dispose of the Line freight rates will be increased, and we shall be called upon to incur heavier expenditure in bounties to encourage our export trade. It appears, therefore, that at least part of the loss which the operation of the Line is incurring will have to be met in any case, though under another heading. If the Line were given the credit it deserves for the relief that it has afforded our primary producers in freight charges, I am sure that there would be no talk of disposing of it. In the case of refrigerated space alone, on the basis of the New Zealand rates, it has saved, our people £239,000 in the last financial year. This should certainly be set off against the actual operating losses that have been incurred. I go so far as to say that if the Government had given the mail contract of £130,000 to the Australian Commonwealth Line instead of to the Orient Line, and taken steps to remove or reduce the heavy expenses incurred by a costly directorate and other administrative costs, as recommended in the interim report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was submitted some time ago, there would have been very little if any loss incurred last year in running the ships. The Government has been guilty of a grave breach of public trust in not giving effect to the recommendations contained in that report. The Government cannot plead ignorance of the financial circumstances of the Line, for OIl the 9th March last year I directed a question to the Prime Minister on this aspect of the case. Rut the loss incurred in running the ships is dwarfed into insignificence when it is compared with the benefits that the Line has conferred upon the Commonwealth. Honorable members have referred to the fact that the British

Government provides mail subsidies in addition to subsidies for shipbuilding and special grants for auxiliary cruisers. Not only Great Britain, but every other country in the world that has any pride in its nationality, assists its shipping. I propose to quote from the Slapping World’ Year-Book* for 1927. That publication shows that even little Belgium paid bounties to shipping companies amounting to £183,196 in 1923. In 1924 Brazil paid bounties to the extent of £597,072, and, in addition, subsidized shipping companies maintaining contract services to the extent of £450,000, making a total of £1,047,072. France spent over £3,000,000 upon subsidies and mail to existing services during 1922, while Great Britain spends £95,070 per annum as a special subsidy to the “ Cunard “ Line, on condition that that Line maintains a ship of approved speed, the Mauretania, and retaining the right of pre-emption or hire of all the company’s ships. Further those “ Cunard “’ ships are partially manned by members of the British naval reserve.

Mr Scullin:

– Great Britain also advanced about £2,000,000, without interest, for the construction of ships, to meet the competition of America.

Mr COLEMAN:

– That is so. In addition, Great Britain pays £380,000 a year in mail subsidies. Italy, a poor country, with a depreciated currency and with great armies of unemployed, sets an example in national pride and ambition which might well be followed by this country. In 1926 Italy spent £277,391 in shipping bounties, and £1,304,348 in subsidies for shipping companies maintaining contract services. Last year Japan spent £700,000 in shipbuilding subsidies. Spain, in 1926, spent £1,281,250 in subsidies to shipping companies maintaining contract services’. In 1.926 Norway, a poverty striken country . with only 124,000 square miles and a population of less than 3,000,000, spent £405,265 on subsidies for maintaining contract services; and in 1925 Sweden spent £160,000 for a similar purpose. I mention those figures because honorable members on the Government benches have argued that Australia is the only country that has attempted to maintain its own shipping service at a loss to the Government. Those figures conclusively prove that even the small nations of Europe and of South America recognize the great national importance, from a defence and economic stand-point, of building up a mercantile marine that will be manned and owned by their own people. This Government is prepared to allow our. shipping services to be conducted by any country, so long as the companies concerned provide the services cheaply. It has been argued that, owing to the active competition between British and foreign shipping companies, we shall enjoy the benefits of reduced freights ; but the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) last night pointed out that all those companies are linked together in combines. While it suits the respective governments of different countries to subsidize their shipping services for the protection of their own nationals, and for the development of their trade, there is no restriction on those foreign shipping services to prevent them exploiting countries that will be rendered economically defenceless, as Australia will be if the Government’s policy is carried into effect. Much capital is made out of the majority report of the Accounts Committee as to the greater running cost involved when ships are on the Australian register. The committee computed that the additional cost in wages is £220.00” By similar reasoning, Britain would be justified in transferring the whole of her ships to the Japanese or Danish register, as she would then be able to run them at a lower cost. The Danish register would represent a cost of £15.44, compared with the English cost of £32.4, and the Australian cost of £100. But the British national pride would not tolerate such an act of treachery and cowardice which would be out of keeping with the age-long tradition of that country. She would not abandon her supremacy on the seas simply because she could maintain her services more cheaply. During this debate honorable members on the Government side have stated that Great Britain has never been required to assist her shipping and foster the development of her mercantile marine. People who talk like that have considered the subject only superficially. They do not know what they are talking about. I do not wish to delve into ancient history; but it is obvious that every country, when it is struggling to establish a mercantile marine, is confronted with the necessity of granting protection to its shipping as well as it trade. Let us go back to England in the year 1603. In that year Sir Walter Raleigh, the famous Englishman, complained in his statement to King James that the vessels of the Dutch, by reason of their greater capacity, smaller crews, and consequently, lower freights, were cutting out the English ships; that English bottoms, were neglected, and English seamen took service with the Dutch. That created a shipping crisis in England in 1650. As s result, the great Navigation Act of 1651 was placed on the British statute-book. Under that far-reaching act, the trade between England and her colonies and the British coasting trade was strictly confined to English bottoms, English-owned, and manned substantially by English seamen. As a result of that masterly piece of legislation, England secured and maintained mercantile supremacy of the seas. The act contained further provisions in support of British shipping, the effect of which was to greatly prejudice foreign shipping in its compeaition, and the act remained on the statute-book for over two centuries. Honorable members are aware of the age-long conflict that has existed between Great Britain and her sea-carrying competitors - France, Holland, and other nations - and it is ridiculous to suggest that England has allowed the consideration of cheapness to determine her mercantile policy. Honorable members on the Government side ignore the facts that are provided by history. It is interesting to note that one of the results of, the policy of excluding foreign ships from the English trade was that the number of English ships was doubled during the period 1666 to 1688. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) is the shining light of consistency on the Government side. The honorable member believes in abandoning the policy of protection; he does not believe in high wages, or arbitration, and consistently has expressed his disbelief in an Australianowned mercantile marine. With him is associated the freetrade corner, which pays such a lot of deference to the teachings of Adam Smith, the founder of the modern freetrade doctrine. It is interesting to note that even Adam Smith was inconsistent in his doctrines, to the extent that he supported the protection afforded to British shipping by the Navigation Act. He had regard to political as well as economic interests, and declared that, on the ground that “ defence is of more importance than opulence,” the Navigation Act was “ perhaps the wisest of all the commercial regulations in England.” During the war and since the war, there has been a deliberate restriction on the employment of aliens in the British mercantile marine, because Britain realized how serious it was, from a defence stand-point, not to have available an adequate mercantile marine, manned by Britishers, that could be utilized in the event of war-time emergencies. However, returning to the Government’s proposed sale of the Line, I desire to say that it was obvious, when the bill of 1923 was introduced, that this Government was determined to get rid of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. I said then that the Government did not intend that the Line should continue. I quoted examples of subsidies being granted in other countries, and stated that our Line could not possibly compete on equal terms with the Orient and P. and 0. and other companies and earn profits. The Government then lacked the decision to dispose of the Line, mainly because Australian public opinion realized its value. They thereupon decided to discredit the Line by saddling it with unfair burdens and excessive overhead charges, preferring slow poisoning to direct murder, which would have outraged public opinion. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) hit the nail on the head when he said at the time that the amending bill of 1923 Wets introduced -

The board proposed in the bill will interfere with the management. If the board is a good one, that will bc right and proper; but, if it is a bad one, its interference will be most unfortunate, and the state of the Line will be worse than the first.

What prophecy could have been more conclusively fulfilled ? Since, the appointment of the Shipping Board, there has been constant trouble among the directors. Why did the Government not step in immediately the trouble occurred, and remove the directorate? Let us examine the record of Mr. Larkin, the chairman of the Shipping Board, who was appointed to that position four years ago, two and a half years of which he has spent abroad. It has been said that his purpose abroad was to sell the “surplus tonnage of the Line; but, according to inspired statements that have appeared in the press from time to time, and what has been freely whispered in the service of the Line and elsewhere, he spent a good deal of his time in Great Britain in trying to arrange to have the Line transferred to other shipping interests, and removed from Australian control.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– What could have been his object?

Mr COLEMAN:

– He has certain connexions with British shipping interests, to which I intend to refer. In any case he has been guilty of nepotism in his administration ; because the firm which is carrying out the tallying and cargo supervising work for the Line in London is owned by a man who happens to be Mr. Larkin’s uncle. He was given a contract amounting to £9,000 a year, for which tenders were not invited. That kind of thing is intolerable in a business undertaking that is carried on under Government auspices. The facts that have been disclosed in this debate lead to the conclusion that the Government has deliberately created the circumstances that have been responsible for the unfortunate financial position that exists in the Line in relation to excessive administrative costs and overhead charges. I have already referred to the refusal of the Government to give effect to the interim report of the Public Accounts Committee. That report was presented fifteen months ago, but the intervening period has been one of government inaction and indifference, during which the nation’s funds have been squandered because of mismanagement by a board, the dismissal of which was recommended. One can only support the conclusion of the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart), who has charged the Government with having deliberately tried to discredit as far as possible, and to destroy, this great enterprise. On the 19th March, 1926, I directed a question to the Prime Minister, the reply to which disclosed that the Line was being unfairly burdened with excessive overhead costs, whilst the committee recommended months ago that the board should be dismissed, but the Government takes no action, it allows public funds to be wilfully squandered in order to build up a damaging case against a state enterprise, which under good management and sympathetic administration would have made a better financial showing. We are confronted now with the fact that the Line is to be sold unconditionally, without any safeguard, and without having a fair trial. The Australian primary producer is to be thrown to the wolves - the Shipping Combine - who are waiting to exploit him by charging increased freights for the carriage of his goods overseas. I could not wish for a better issue upon which to contest the next election than the sale of the Line. I make bold to prophesy that after that event we shall have hanging to our belts the scalps of s number of honorable members who now ait opposite. More is involved than the question of cost; there are the issues of national pride and honour, .the welfare of the primary producer, and the employment of black labour in preference to the development of our own mercantile” marine. Sneers and cheap gibes have been hurled at the seamen who man the Line ; but even the Public Accounts Committee has been sufficiently generous to admit that there has been industrial peace for the last two and a half years. Why? Simply because there has been a more tactful handling of the men who are enengaged in the industry. The fact cannot be denied that a good deal of industrial trouble occurred in the past because of tactless handling. I have some knowledge of the matter, because during the time that I spent with the Seamen’s Union I saw how often bullying and tyrannical officers who lacked tact, fairness, and even intelligence, deliberately goaded men beyond endurance. That the Line is enjoying industrial peace to-day is attributable to the more sympathetic and tactful handling of the men.. Mr. Larkin is not entitled to claim any credit for that. When he arrived in Australia on his last visit, his first utterance was a challenge to the marine unionists, and a statement of the way in which he was going to “tune them up.” I have worked among seamen, and I say that no body of men -.an be handled as satisfactorily if tact is employed. I protest against the biased and unscrupulous manner in which the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) attempted to discredit the Line in regard to the seamen.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to withdraw the word “unscrupulous “.

Mr COLEMAN:

– I do so; but I claim that I am entitled to use the term “ politically unscrupulous “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member must see that there is no difference between the terms. Both are a slur on the reputation of the Treasurer.

Mr COLEMAN:

– In deference to you, sir, and so that I may complete my speech, I withdraw the term.

Mr Theodore:

– Call it an unconscionable attitude.

Mr COLEMAN:

– Adopting the suggestion of the honorable member for Dalley, I say that the Treasurer has adopted an . unconscionable attitude. He quoted extracts which related to industrial trouble in the Line, and in every case the reference was to a disturbance that occurred three years or more ago. He also made comparisons of freight rates; but, as the honorable member for Wimmera has suggested, he picked out only those that suited him. When he compared the freight rates on butter from New Zealand and Australia he evidently had before him the rates on other refrigerated produce ; but, not finding them to his advantage, he passed them over, and endeavoured to make a specious and misleading case. Notwithstanding the gibes that have been directed against Australian seamen, I remind the House that over 3,000 of those men went to the war, and many thousands more did invaluable transport duty. We need a mercantile marine reserve in case of a national emergency. It would pay the Government to regard the expense of maintaining the Commonwealth Line - which, after all, is an auxiliary naval fleet - as a portion of the defence expenditure, apart altogether from the advantages that it confers upon primary producers by keeping down freights. The difficulty of domicile and other party matters, which have formed the subject of criticism from the Government side, are all questions of internal administration. No credit is reflected upon a Government which will introduce these trivialities in an attempt to foul its own nest by damaging the reputation of the Line. We have been told that there is a shortage of naval ratings to man our fleet. How shall we be able to man an Australian naval unit in the event of an outbreak of Avar if Ave hand over our marine transportation to former enemy aliens - the Germans- or to the Danes, the Japanese, the Chinese, or even British companies that man their vessels Avith Iascar crews? The present attitude of the Government is in contradistinction to that which it t adopted a few years ago. Today it says, “ Let the German ships carry our produce.” What a terrible insult that is to Australian sentiment and to those who made the supreme sacrifice in the world war ! I have shown conclusively that every nation recognizes the importance of maintaining a mercantile marine as a reservoir in the event of war from which to complete its complement of naval units. It has been said that we who sit in this House are the representatives of the 6,000,000 shareholders of the Commonwealth Line and are entitled to know the facts. The fact has been elicited that the most important evidence which was given in favour of the Line is confidential and that the Government refuses to disclose it.’ We are groping in the dark. We are asked to decide the fate of a great national undertaking without the possession of the fullest information. That, in itself, is an indictment sufficiently severe to condemn the Government in the mind of any independent honorable member. We are expected to accept ex parte statements and to give credence to the utterances of the honorable member for

Gwydir, the honorable member for Forrest, and other honorable members who have refuted and recanted a report which bears their signature. Yesterday the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), having observed ‘ the Prime Minister and the Treasurer drifting down the political stream lost in mutual admiration, rudely rocked the boat. The rocking of that boat W-111 be felt from one end of Australia to the other. I am convinced that thousands of people supported the Nationalist and Country party candidates at the last election because they did not state their intention to bring to a close the activities of the Australian Common- wealth Line of Steamers. As has been pointed out by the honorable member for Wimmera, the Government has not a mandate to sell the Line. I have examined its policy backwards and forwards and in every other way to try to find some reference in it to an intention to sell the Line. On the contrary, during the last election campaign, many honorable members who sit opposite claimed credit because the Line was being operated as a check upon the machinations of the Inchcape Combine.

Mr Stewart:

– When they sell the Line, they will calmly say it was an act of this Parliament for which every honorable member Avas responsible.

Mr COLEMAN:

– That is so. If the honorable member for Wimmera, the right honorable member for North Sydney, the right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) and an honorable senator who sits in another place, were to raise the standard of revolt, even in their own party, on this issue, so great is the national interest and affection for the Line that they would seriously disrupt the two elements that compose the Government. How can Country party members justify this sale? Clause 20a of their platform reads -

Encouraging the establishment of regular, direct shipping services, with adequate refrigerated space, at competitive rates, to potential markets.

Will the sale of the Line encourage the establishment of direct shipping services, and the provision of adequate refrigerated space as weN as competitive freight rates to potential markets? It is the very abnegation of the principal plank of the platform of the Country party. Because .of the violation of the principles of that party, independent and courageous-minded men, such as the honorable member for Wimmera, have been compelled to resign from it. I hold no brief for the political opinions of the honorable member for Wimmera ; . but all must recognize his courage in sacrificing a portfolio and deliberately risking his whole political career, because his views were at variance with those of the Treasurer and other members of the Country party on matters affecting the welfare of the primary producers. How can the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Hill), who sits complacently on the front bench and makes no contribution to this debate, reconcile his present attitude with his utterance when the Shipping Board was constituted? Speaking in 1923 on the secondreading of the bill providing for its establishment he said - -The main reason why we have support for this Line is that we believe that in days gone by we have been exploited, and probably will be exploited again, by the Shipping Combine.

He was not a Minister then: Since that time he has supplanted the honorable member for Wimmera in the Cabinet, and now he is a party to a proposal calculated to place the primary producers entirely at the mercy of the Shipping Combine, which he declared in 1923, would continue to exploit them. How can Nationalists justify their sudden affection for German, shippers, whom they condemned during the war period? Do they favour vessels manned by black crews in preference to our own mercantile marine? No better issue on which to fight an election could be found than the maintenance of a White Australia and a white Australian mercantile marine. The Prime Minister himself, before he came completely under the domination of his political better-half, the Treasurer, said on the 4th July, 1923-

The Line has rendered incalculable service to Australia.

Again, in reply to the second-reading debate on the Shipping Bill, he said -

I remind honorable members of the successful fight put up quite recently by the Line with respect to the discrimination shown by the whole of the Conference Lines vessels against shippers of the Commonwealth Government Line.

In the same speech he further said -

Shortly after the Line was established; it was carrying Australian wheat to London at £7 10s., at a time when British ship-owners were charging £13 per ton and more, foreign charters were as high as £15 per ton.

In their anxiety to build up a case, honorable members on the Government side tried to suggest, by direct statement and by inference, that the Line throughout its history had been a burden to Australia; but the Prime Minister, in his speech on the .1923 bill, gave the lie direct to the suggestion. When attending the Imperial Conference some years ago he said -

We have heard many complaints as to the provisions of our Navigation Act, but you must take it that Australia is quite determined that she will have a Navigation Act of her own, and try to create a mercantile marine of her own.

But now the writing is on the wall. When the Shipping Line has gone, the Navigation Act also will probably go. The indications point in that direction. The Australian mercantile marine will then be controlled entirely by the polygot aliens that our friends opposite denounced a few years ago. Compare the attitude of the Prime Minister in 1923 with thor adopted by him twelve months ago, when speaking at the Chamber of Shipping luncheon in London. We have had the remarkable spectacle of the Treasurer defending Lord Inchcape as a great philanthropist and friend of the primary producer during this debate. What a pitiable farce the Government plays, when it defends the representatives of combines such as that controlled by Lord Inchcape, who has been the subject of condemnation from one end of the British Empire to the other because of his restrictive methods. Now let us view the change in the attitude of the Prime Minister in 1923 compared with the present time. Speaking at the Chamber of Shipping luncheon, -the Prime Minister said -

I do not know whether you are giving Australia tile best services. I am told you are no.t. I am told you can accelerate the time of reaching AusTalia from London by ten days to Fremantle, and fourteen days to Sydney. We may be at your mercy, but I hope to heaven you will exercise your power mercifully.

Mr Scullin:

– An appeal to Shylock!

Mr COLEMAN:

– Quite so. After assuming that weak and undignified role, the Prime Minister proposes to deprive Australia of the one guarantee it has against exploitation and inefficient marine transportation. In contrast Lord Inchcape said recently “ there is little indication so far of improved rates of freight.” He complained that they were suffering from “ uneconomic competition of certain State-owned ships.” Instead of his being able to raise freights those Stateowned ships brought them down. If cheapness is to be substituted for national honour, patriotism and development, why stop at ships? As the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) said last night, let us scrap the tariff, withdraw the bounties amounting to £2,000,000 that have been paid in the last four years, lower our standards of living, and destroy the great ideals for which our men made sacrifices in the recent world war. Some honorable members would have us degenerate to the level of coolies. That is the only inference to be drawn from their utterances. They say that the Line costs too much. I repeat that the British shipping services cost 100 per cent. more than the cheap services of certain countries; but the people of Great Britain do not complain that their transportation should be transferred to a foreign register. National pride impels them to make financial sacrifices. The problem of fighting the Inchcape Combineis not confined to Australia. For instance, the Prime Minister of Canada has said that the only way to exercise control over ocean-going freights is for the government to build a mercantile marine and enter into active competition with the Combine, either by the control of freights by commission or by subsidizing existing services. It would be impossible to effectively subsidize a shipping service and thus help Australia, so the only way to conduct the war against the Combine in an isolated country such as this is to enter into active competition with it. Attempts to regulate its operations by legislation would be ineffective; constitutional obstacles stand in the way. One of the greatest benefits the Line has conferred on the producers has been the abolition of the pernicious deferred rebate system, and the substitution of a volun tary agreement and a net rate of freight. The Government contemplates spending £34,000,000 on assisted migration. What vessels are better designed and equipped for bringing immigrants to Australia than the “ Bay “ liners and the “ Dale “ ships. I have before me a photograph published in the Sydney Daily Guardian, showing a large crowd watching one of the “ Bay “ liners as it was about to sail for Europe. The newspaper stated that -

While rain caused some sports to be postponed on Saturday, it had no appreciable effect on the attendance at the wharf when the Largs Bay sailed for Europe. Even though the moisture made the streamers dangle rather limply, there was no lack of jollity among the passengers and their friends.

The arrival and departure of these splendid vessels is an interesting spectacle in Sydney. Thousands attend at the wharf to see them, and view them with great pride. I have given honorable members opposite concrete facts showing the disparity in freights between Australia and New Zealand, and they will find it hard to reconcile them with the statements of the Treasurer.

Mr Stewart:

– The honorable member gave some figures that the Treasurer omitted.

Mr COLEMAN:

– Quite so. He deliberately refrained from quoting them. Honorable members supporting the Government should certainly hesitate to fly in the face of public opinion by sacrificing the Australian Commonwealth Line. This country, forging its destiny on the anvil of self-reliance and national ambition, calls for strong, vigorous, and patrioticgovernment based upon Australian ideals, manhood, and standards. The people desire no government that prefers the emplyoment of coolies and aliens on the vessels engaging in our coastal trade, to the detriment of our national industries. If anything can bring Australia to national disaster it is languid political leaders, whose chief attributes are a false conception of Australian sentiment and requirements and lack of a settled policy. This Government has never had a settled policy. What the Prime Minister said in 1923 he hasseen fit to swallow in 1927. His policy seems to be adapted to the political exigencies of the moment, and he is more or less under the domination of the party that was formerly known as the Country party. The Prime Minister’s head is lost in the Olympian clouds of imperial policy. He has made no attempt to give proper consideration of the urgent national problems confronting Australia, which include not only the protection of our shipping, the lowering of freights, and the marketing of our products under favourable conditions, but also the encouragement of our languishing industries, for the protection of which we are already paying a sum of £35,000,000 a year in the form of Customs duties. Our industries are languishing, and therefore the protective policy of the Government is inadequate. In advocating the retention of the Australian Commonwealth Line, honorable members on this side of the House are acting consistently with their political ideals and principles. In 1923, I had the temerity to suggest that the Government intended to dispose of the Line, and was therefore creating circumstances that would gi- e it, possibly, a specious excuse for disposing of that great national enterprise later. Byron’s lines could well be applied to the Prime Minister. He is - the mildest mannered man

That ever cut a throat or scuttled ships.

Having cut the throat of the Commonwealth Woollen Mills and maimed the Commonwealth Bank, he is now attempting to scuttle the Australian Commonwealth Line, preferring to encourage vessels manned with black labour to trade on our coast.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

.- This is the first want-of-confidence motion that has been launched by the Opposition during the sitting of the tenth Parliament, and is the first to be moved at the Federal Capital City. We have to consider whether the retention of the Australian Commonwealth Line is justified, and two matters have to be taken into account. The first is whether the Line pays as a business proposition ; );nd, secondly, whether it has justified its existence from a national standpoint. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) and the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart)

V ade valuable contributions to the de bate; but other speakers, particularly the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, left too much unsaid. The Leader of the Opposition did not do his case justice. I was particularly struck with his reference to the benefits that the primary producers had received from the operations of the Line; but, in view of what I know of Labour Governments, more particularly in the State of New South Wales, I cannot help thinking that the tears he shea were no more than crocodile tears. The Prime Minister’s reply was totally inadequate. He should have been in a position to supply to this House in formation that was subsequently given by the right honorable member for North Sydney. I agree with the honorable member for Wimmera that the Government should have refrained from announcing its decision to sell the Line until it had been able to obtain all the facts and to place them before this House. I was not present at the joint meetings of the Nationalist and Country parties, and consequently any reported decisions arrived, at there do not in any way hind me. It has been shown that the Government did not place the whole of the facts before its supporters, as certain material facts were not known to the Government. The Prime Minister admitted that. The cables that were read by the right honorable member for North Sydney yesterday were of the nature of a bomb shell, which was certainly not a “ dud.” We have to consider whether the Commonwealth Line has been instrumental in protecting the primary producer and the manufacturer from exploitation by- other overseas shipping Lines.

Mr Stewart:

– That is the crucial issue.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I agree with the honorable member. Reading between the lines of the two reports of the Public Accounts Committee, it appears that the members had difficulty in submitting definite recommendations. In the interim report of August, 1926, it is stated -

Hie evidence so far placed before the committee indicates that not only has the Commonwealth Line been directly responsible for actual reductions in freights, but”’ that the presence of the Line has exerted a material restraining influence against proposed increases.

There is no beating about the bush in respect of that statement. The report continues -

Whilst it is difficult, in fact almost impossible, owing to the many factors to bo considered, to indicate in figures the actual gains to Australia by such action, it appears to the committee, from the evidence already heard, that the shippers and primary producers of Australia have derived much benefit from the establishment of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers. The committee therefore recommends that in the interests of Australia, the Line be continued.

The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) stated yesterday that the committee’s purpose in making that report was mainly to protect the interests of the Australian Commonwealth Line whilst the investigation was in progress. But I cannot fit in that explanation with the definite statement that the Line has exerted a material restraining influence against proposed increases and has been directly responsible for actual reductions in freights. After making that report, the committee examined one witness, the general manager of the Line and to him it addressed about one third of the total questions put to witnesses. Are we to assume that the evidence of Mr. Larkin was so damning in the eyes of the members of the committee that they changed their opinions and recommended the sale of the Line? That assumption is surely preposterous.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I understand that certain information was given to the committee in camera, but the main evidence taken after the presentation of the interim report in August of last year was that of Mr. Larkin, the general manager of the Line. In view of the committee’s first recommendation, it seems peculiar that Mr. Larkin should have so altered the committee’s outlook that it suggested, the selling of the Line, and then, as an alternative to government control, the formation of a sort of co-operative company to take over and operate the business. That aspect of the matter was very ably dealt with by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), and all I need say upon it is that if the Government cannot run the Line successfully, and counter the influence of the Combine, I fail to see how a co-operative company will be able to do it. When travelling in India and Burmah about twelve months ago, I was surprised to learn that the agents for the Commonwealth Shipping Line in Colombo, Messrs. McKinnon and McKenzie and Company, were also the agents for the P. andO. Company, and the BritishIndia Company throughout India and Egypt. The Commonwealth Line relies upon its agents to get cargo for it at intermediate ports, and if our agents are also in the employ of the Conference, it seems hardly likely that the government fleet will get the best cargoes that are offering.

Mr McGrath:

Mr. Larkin was responsible for that.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Whether Mr.. Larkin alone or the combined board was responsible I cannot say. But I suggest that one reason why the Commonwealth Line has not received the cargoes that it should have received is that its agents at Colombo are also the agents for lines that are in direct competition with our fleet.

Mr McGrath:

– Is the honorable member aware that Mr. Larkin’s son is. in the service of McKinnon and McKenzie and Company ?

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I understand that that is so. Last year he was in their Calcutta office. The recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that the services of the three members of the board should be dispensed with seems to be justified, in view of the statement I have made. Of course, Mr. Farquahar is on the board only as a representative of the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, and may be retained. The operations of the Line have been actually directed by Mr. Larkin, the chairman, and Sir William Clarkson, and they must accept responsibility for the enormous over-head cost of about £90,000 a year. If that cost were reduced, the balancesheet of the Line would not be substantially improved, but any economy in the running of the Line would be to its advantage. Very often the difference between good and bad management in a business undertaking is the difference between success and failure. We have had many indications that the members of the Shipping Board have not always acted in the best interests of the Line.

Mr Maxwell:

– That very often happens in government enterprises.

Mr.R. GREEN. - I agree with the honorable member. The kernel of the subject before the House is - Has the Line fulfilled the purposes for which it was brought into existence? In other words, has it directly reduced freights or been responsible for maintaining them at a reasonable level? Dogmatic declarations in the negative or the affirmative are of no avail; but, upon the weight of evidence before it up to August of last year, the Public Accounts Committee definitely stated in its interim report that the Line had been directly responsible for actual reductions in freight and had exerted a material restraining influence against proposed increases. That statement was corroborated by certain cablegrams which were read to the House yesterday, and mere denials unsupported by facts are insufficient to refute such evidence. I believe therefore, that the Line has realized the purpose for which it was brought into being, and if it has made losses we have to ask ourselves, first, as consumers and exporters and secondly as taxpayers, whether such losses have not been outweighed by the freight advantages. According to figures quoted yesterday, the Line has saved Australian shippers about £1,000,000 per annum as a result of reduced freights.

Mr Prowse:

– There has been no saving on freights.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– If the Commonwealth Line had not been in existence, the freights would have been so much higher that on the total tonnage carried the Australian community would have had to pay an extra £1,000,000 per annum. As a set-off against that gain, there was an actual loss last year on the Line’s operations of nearly £600,000; so even from the monetary point of view, and putting sentiment aside, Australia has been benefited by the Commonwealth Line.

Mr Foster:

– It may have had a steadying influence on freights.

Mr Stewart:

– I do not think that anybody doubts that.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Public Accounts Committee stated definitely in its interim report that the Line had yielded certain clear benefits, and did not contradict that in its final report. The honorable member for Wimmera made a very good point to-day when he said that if the freights for the Commonwealth Line had been lower than those for the Conference Lines, goods awaiting shipment by its vessels would have been piling up at both ends of the route, and the Line would have been forced to acquire more ships in order to handle the business. I am asked where the Government would get the money to buy new ships. In September of this year the United States Shipping Board was selling tonnage at as low a price as $6.00, or about 25s. per ton.If the Commonwealth receives only that price for the 88,626 tons of shipping in its fleet, the Line will be disposed of for the paltry amount of £110,782.

Mr Foster:

– What was the nature of the American tonnage which was sold for 253. a ton ?

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Most of it represented cargo-carrying vessels. If the two “ Dale “ boats were sold at that price, they would realize a little over £20.000. It has been said that if the vessels are sold it will be conditional upon an undertaking being given that they will still be used to maintain a certain service with Australia. I take it for granted, of course, that they will remain on the British register.

Mr Theodore:

– The Prime Minister stated that that was the only rigid condition that would be laid down.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I should like to ask how we could enforce any condition in respect to the service which the vessels shall render to this country? What safeguard could we have that the agreement would be honored. I am sorry that the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) did not deal with that point in his speech. When the American House of Representatives was debating a proposal that certain vessels belonging to the fleet of the Government of the United States of America should be sold, it was said that if a ten years’ guarantee were given that the vessels would be engaged in the American trade no harm would be done by selling them; but other speakers took the very point that I am taking now, that a guarantee of that kind would be very difficult to enforce. It was even suggested that it would be better to give the ships away on a five years’ guarantee that the desired service should be rendered than to risk having to enforce a ten years’ guarantee.

Mr Maxwell:

– How could a guarantee of that kind be enforced?

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable member is a lawyer, and he should be able to answer questions of that kind.

Mr Maxwell:

– I have had no experience in that direction.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I must confess that as a layman I can see that serious difficulty may arise if those who purchase these vessels show a disinclination to adhere to the terms of the contract.

Mr Watkins:

– How can we expect to control the vessels after we have sold them?

Mr Scullin:

– The only effect of putting a clause like this into the proposal to sell will be that somebody may get the vessels at a lower price.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Then we must consider whether, after the sale has been made, we shall have power to insist that the vessels shall be kept on the British register. When the sale is being negotiated, the prospective purchasers may undertake to place the vessels on the British register, and later they may do so; but where shall we be if, after twelve or eighteen months, they transfer them to some other register?

Mr Stewart:

– Supposing thatthe purchasers become insolvent.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– It is a mere matter of contract.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. G. Francis) is also a lawyer, so perhaps he can tell us how these two proposed conditions could be enforced. We will probably have to make an unrestricted sale for whatever we can get. I wish now to refer to the effect that the sale of the fleet will have from the defence point of view. Our frontiers are sea-girt, and as these ships may at any time be converted into armoured cruisers they are a factor in the defence of the country. It has been pointed out that the offensive armaments of the boats are at least as great as those of the Sydney and Melbourne.

Mr Stewart:

– Actually greater.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– They have not the speed of the cruisers I have mentioned and in the event of coming into conflict with faster cruisers carrying similar armaments may suffer defeat; but if they should be required to deal with vessels of smaller armaments, speed would not be an important factor provided they could get the enemy within range. It seems to me to be very unwise for us on the one hand to be spending £5,000,000 on the construction of new cruisers, and on the other to be selling vessels which might, in the case of necessity, be an effective arm of our defence forces. I think we could make them of still greater use. The British Government pays a subsidy to the Cunard Company in consideration of it building vessels of a convertible type with a certain minimum speed, and manning them to a specified extent with naval reserve and/or fleet reserve men; Honorable members know that the Cunard ships fly the blue ensign, which means that in addition to their masters, certain officers and ratings must be naval reserve or fleet reserve men. It would be an excellent thing, in my opinion, if an arrangement of that kind were made with the directors of the Australian Commonwealth Line. Two objects would be served by adopting this proposal. Our time-expired Royal Australian Navy men would still have a seafaring life open to them, and would not be obliged to fulfil the sailor’s dream of buying a farm and settling down; and our naval defence forces would be strengthened. There is a sentimental as well as an economic and strategic aspect to this subject. Australia has now become a nation, and the time has arrived when she should cease to rely altogether oh Great Britain for naval protection. We ought not to be “ loafing on the old man.” We are managing our own affairs in almost every way, and we ought to be making a better attempt to do so defensively. Great Britain has carried the burden of defending Australia for many years, and she should now be relieved of it.

Mr Prowse:

– Would the honorable member be willing to put these ships under naval discipline?

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am not prepared to answer that question offhand. I consider that this fleet is of distinct advantage to Australia for purely defensive purposes. I wish now to refer briefly to the manning of the ships. Our liners are manned under Australian articles, and the “ Bay “ steamers carry a complement of 170 hands, as against 154 carried on similar vessels manned under British articles. It costs £3,725 a month to pay the crew on a “Bay” liner, as against £1,654 on a British vessel - less than half the amount. That conveys to me the idea that it takes 16 more Australians to do the amount of work that is done by 154 British seamen. That is a grave reflection on the ability of Australian seamen, and the quicker such regulations are done away with, the better. The Accounts Committee has shown that if the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers were manned under British articles, it would show a working profit of 5 per cent. To-day I examined the results of the operations of 72 British steamship lines over a period of four years. Fourteen of those were passenger, and 58 cargo lines. The following figures show ratio percentage of earnings to the paid up capital of the companies concerned : -

In every case, the profits were under 5 per cent. The profits for the whole 72 lines were as under : -

representing an average profit of about 44 per cent., which is not at all extravagant. During the war the earnings of a number of those lines represented a profit of as high as 47 per cent. That was the case in 1917, and it indicates that, while the British Empire was fighting with its back to the wall, British ship-owners were endeavouring to pull down that wall. What has been done in the past may be done again. Had those shipping companies been presented with an opportunity they would have sucked th>i very life-blood from the nation. I know quite a lot about ships and shipping and have in my possession my discharge book, issued at Liverpool and marked, “ eligiblefor A.B. rating.” I was a member of the Seamen’s Union of which Havelock Wilson is President. Without egotism, I may claim to have travelled as much or more than any other honorable member, and I deprecate the slur that is cast upon our Australian seamen by the suggestion that they are not equal to other Britishers. I hold no brief for the Australian Seamen’s Union, and on more than one occasion in this House I have expressed myself concerning the members of that union. When the amending bill was before this House, in 1923, I made certain remarks concerning the Seamen’s Union which I was afterwards called upon to prove, and which I did prove right up to the hilt. I stated that that union was disloyal, and I proved it. It is a brindie union. It certainly is not white, as it will take any one as a mem ber, irrespective of colour. Honorable members opposite state that they are out to fight for White Australian conditions, yet they arc fighting for the Seamen’s Union, which is the blackest of any union. We need white men on our ships, and we need ships on which we can place the men who have finished their vocational service in our navy. It has been suggested that, if we removed the restrictions of our Navigation Act our ships would immediately be manned by black labour. That should, not worry the Seamen’s Union, as it admits coloured people into its ranks. To those on this side of the House, who are sincere in their desire for a White Australia, it is objectionable to support a union that disregards White Australian principles. Twelve months ago I took a trip in a steamer which was run by Burns Philp and Company Limited. The officers were all white, but the remainder of the crew were coloured: Malays and Chinese. The vessel was motor-driven, so there was no necessity for a stoke-hold crew. Afterwards, I travelled on the British-India Line, which includes Hindus and Mohammedans in its crews. I am sure that no person in Australia wishes our seamen to work under conditions similar to those that I have witnessed on board the vessels to which I have referred. They were horrible. Any honorable member who wishes to enlarge his knowledge respecting these matters, should, I suggest, fake a trip round the East and observe at first hand the conditions under which these vessels are run. I - and I am sure every honorable member - want to see the Australian Commonwealth Line manned by white labour. It is infamous to suggest that any honorable member on this side desires to have black labour employed on those vessels. A little more than twelve months ago the Government asked the people of Australia to consent to its taking certain power to legislate respecting essential services. Unfortunately, it was met with a refusal. I am one of those who believe that the Commonwealth Line is an- essential service in the best sense of the term, and I am greatly surprised that the Government intends to rid itself of it. No contradiction has been forthcoming of the cables which yesterday were read by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) or of the statements that appear in the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. That committee had before it the fullest information, whilst honorable members have not. I had intended moving an amendment to the motion, but I shall not now do so. If the intention of the Government, as announced) by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) is persisted in, a bill will have to be introduced to give effect to it.

Mr Theodore:

– It may sell first and ratify afterwards.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It will be necessary to repeal certain existing legislation. That cannot be done except by coming to this House. I should then oppose the sale of the Line.

Mr Stewart:

– I suggest that the honorable member should ask the Government for a guarantee that it will not sell until the terms and conditions of sale have been ratified by this Parliament.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I find myself at variance with the Government on one matter of policy, but in agreement with it on many other matters. I find myself in agreement with the Opposition on this one matter, but in disagreement with it on many hundreds of others. Therefore, as the good legislation of the Government is likely to outweigh that with which I. am in disagreement, I propose on this motion to vote with it. I shall certainly not assist to put it out of office, and thus provide the opportunity for a worse government to come into power. When this matter was before the House in 1923, I said this: -

We must not forget that this trading venture is very much in the nature of an experiment. It is quite possible that it may lose large sums of public money, as has happened in the United States of America, and in Canada. It may be advisable, therefore, at the end of five years to scrap the whole of the steamers to avoid any further loss. I have no objection to the experiment, and, as such, I am prepared to support the bill.

That is my attitude to-night. The charge that the Line has not been of benefit to Australia, and therefore ought to be scrapped, is not sustained by the facts. I believe that it has been, is now, and is likely to remain, of benefit to Australia. So long as it occupies that position, I shall continue to support its existence. Considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence will not affect my judgment in the future, any more than they did in 1923. We expend large sums upon education, defence, police forces, and many other services, from which we do not receive a return in pounds, shillings, and pence. That expenditure is justifiable provided the quid pro quo is adequate. In this case I believe that it is, even though it has been alleged that we are losing nearly £600,000 a year. I deny that.” It is my belief that Australia is in pocket to the extent of £400,000 a year. Those honorable members who sit on this side ought to put the Government on the right track. I trust that it will reconsider its decision to sell the Line.

Mr YATES:
Adelaide

.- The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) has delivered a most peculiar speech. He has supported the motion, but the party pull has been too strong for him to do what he has reasonably and logically demonstrated is the right thing. I am not concerned with what he has said upon the merits of the motion, but I am concerned with the fact that whenever he rises to address this House he attacks the working man. He claims to have been a working man at some time or other; yet he has made an attack on the last body of working men upon whom legislation has conferred any benefit. He is well aware that no man has slaved under worse conditions than those which, in the past have governed the employment of the seafaring man. No worker takes greater risks than he, or is robbed of domestic life to a greater extent. For a period of seventeen years I worked in a factory. I would sooner return to that employment than go down to the sea in ships. In olden days the seamen lived in the fo’casle, and they were invariably smoked out by the filthy oil lamps that were in use. lt is a part of their duty to man the lifeboats, should anything happen to the ship. They have to keep the vessel going, and they have constantly before them evidences of the lavish expenditure of the wealth that is produced by the worker on the land. Whilst the honorable member for Richmond was working in the industry, he ought to have made as great an effort to have the conditions of employment altered as he is now making in condemnation of the seamen. He has referred to the Seamen’s Union as a “ brindle “ union. What is the British Empire? Is it wholly white? I have not one word to say against the Emipre. I, like the honorable member, fought for it in its time of travail. I realize that if any nation has stood for the development of mankind, it is the British Empire. But I must also admit that in some directions it has been guilty of as many sins as any other nation. It has exhibited carelessness in its dealings with the working men in the years that have passed. A perusal of its history brings tears to the eyes; but not to a greater extent than does the consideration of the conditions of the seafaring m’an in the days prior to the estab- klishment of what the honorable member has called a “ brindle “ union. Now the honorable member has the audacity to revile the organization to which he formerly belonged. I am pre pared to give facts to show what trade unionism stands for in this country. The honorable member made reference to job control; but I remind him that the shipping companies jobcontrolled the Empire when it had its back to the wall. The men of the Seamen’s Union, the Shearers’ Union, the Miners’ Union, and every other trade and calling offered their lives in the trenches. The working classes in every part of the Empire provided the bulk of its fighting forces. Which shipping company, I: ask, supplied the services of its vessels free of charge during the war? Who in control of money and ships gave anything free? These questions must be raised when the unions are attacked. The honorable member for Richmond, in the course of his condemnation of the Government, could not refrain from throwing a brickbat at his erstwhile companions in the Seamen’s Union. I believe that the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) subscribed money to the war loan and declined to accept interest upon it. Did anybody else give anything free? I should like to hear a reply that would confound me, if one is to be found. The Labour party has to take Southern Europeans into the unions so that they shall not undercut the Australians and lower the standard of living that they have established. My party has to protect itself, not against the Southern Europeans, but against those who would exploit cheap- labour. The honorable member for Richmond cannot fairly twit the Seamen’s Union with being “brindle” because of its action in connexion with the employment of black crews. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) said that black men or Chinese could be employed.

Mr Stewart:

– I said that it was possible under the terms that the Government had annuonced

Mr YATES:

– The honorable member said that the sal.e of the Line would bring about their employment on the Australian coast. If the Government believes in a White Australia, it should prevent that. There are 154 Australians on the articles of these ships as against 170 Britishers - a difference of only 16. Do honorable members know the facts?

The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) and the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook) are aware that the employees are engaged according to regulations by a manning committee, an independent body appointed under the Navigation Act.

Mr Prowse:

– That does not dispose of the criticism.

Mr YATES:

– It disposes of the suggestion that a “ go-slow “ policy is adopted. Before the act came into force, the ships went to sea undermanned. If exception can be taken to the manning of the vessels, this Parliament, and not the Seamen’s Union, is to blame. Before the honorable member for Richmond makes another attack on that union, he should become acquainted with the facts of the case. He should refer to the official statistics showing the wealth that has been produced in Australia before he talks of the Australian workman “ going slow.” These give a lie direct to his calumniators. I am informed that 3,000 members of the Seamen’s Union went to the war. Of the men employed on the vessels of the Australian Commonwealth Line, 520 are domiciled in the United Kingdom. It is readily under.stood that, as the ships came from Great Britain, their crews signed on at the port of embarkation for the round voyage, and when discharged at their home port more Britishers would naturally have to be engaged. No doubt the men domiciled in Australia are those recruited for the Ferndale and the Fordsdale when those vessels left the Commonwealth. Five of the masters are Australians and only two Britishers. Of the officers, 57 are Australians and 19 Britishers. Evidently the brains of the fleet are supplied by Australia, although the brawn and muscle is equally divided between the two countries. There are 61 Australian engineers as against 89 Britishers. Personally, I should like the vessels to be wholly manned by Australians; but, as they remain in Sydney for only a week, and berth for a fortnight or three weeks in England, .me can understand why in many instances the men are domiciled there. This motion could not have been unexpected by the Government, which has evidently used the Public Accounts Committee for a certain purpose. The honorable member for Wimmera regretted that the proposed sale of the Line had been made a party issue.

Mr Stewart:

– I said I regretted that the motion tended to make it a party issue.

Mr YATES:

– That is not the fault of those who have the welfare of Australia at heart. When the report of the Public Accounts Committee was tabled in this House during the visit of the Duke of York to Canberra, we knew instantly what was to happen to the Australian Commonwealth Line. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) on that occasion threatened that unless the Prime Minister promised that no action would be taken in the interim respecting the disposal or otherwise of the Line, the opening ceremony would be held up. Although the Prime Minister gave way, he has not altered his decision to sell the Line. We knew that we should be permitted to discuss the report of the Accounts Committee only when it suited the purposes of the Government. We could get no reply from the Prime Minister respecting his decision, and therefore the Leader of the Opposition took him to task by launching this want-of -confidence motion. We do not deny that we stand for the development of public utilities under government control. We accept that responsibility ; but it has been shown in this debate that the retention of the Australian Commonwealth Line is not a party issue. The throwing out of employment of 514 seamen and engineers by the scrapping of the Line is a negligible factor. It has been demonstrated that the Line is a public utility, and has been of great benefit to this community. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) candidly admitted that. How, then, can the retention of the Line be a party issue?

Mr Charlton:

– It was made a party question at the caucus meeting of the Nationalist party.

Mr YATES:

– The retention of the Line is of such vital importance to Australia that it should be above being made a party issue. This debate has clearly shown that the Line is an essential service, and has been of inestimable value to the community of Australia. The Prime Minister evidently intended to treat this want-of-confidence motion lightly,because the first member of the Nationalist party to speak- on the motion was the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Gardner), who made a most abject apology for signing the report. He stated that he could make nothing out of the evidence, and could not ascertain what benefits had been derived from the operations of the Line. Yet this statement is contained in the interim report which was signed by the honorable member -

In view, however, of emphatic evidence placed before the committee that, owing to the uncertainty which exists concerning the continuance of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, its business has been adversely affected, the committee has deemed it desirable to submit to Parliament, prior to the approaching recess, this interim report.

The substance of the honorable member’s speech to this House was that he did not know how the Accounts Committee’s conclusion was arrived at. There is surely nothing indefinite about it, and Parliament has to accept the report as coming from a responsible body of men. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) said that no concrete evidence had been obtained to justify the contention thatthe Line had conferred certain benefits upon Australia; that the interim report was only temporary; and that an accused person is not punished before his trial. I should think not. The honorable member considers the interim report to be only a passing reference. It is nothing of the sort. The committee was impelled to make it because of the emphatic evidence placed before it.

Mr Lister:

– Only up to that time.

Mr YATES:

– I understand that only one witness was examined after that report had been made.

Mr Lister:

– Many of the previous witnesses were re-examined.

Mr YATES:

– I am glad to have that information. The personnel of the committee has altered considerably since the interim report was made. There have been several changes, and the Ministry took caretoselect as new members of the committee only those honorable members who Avould make recommendations in accordance with the policy of the Government. The interim report continues -

Whilst it is difficult, in fact, almost impossible, owing to the many factors to be considered, to indicate in figures the actual gain to Australia by such action, it appears to the committee, from the evidence already heard, that the shippers and primary producers of Australia have derived much benefit from the establishment of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers. The committee, therefore, recommends that, in the interests of Australia, the Line be continued.

That recommendation is as definite and emphatic as the evidence upon which it was based. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It means that the Line has been of inestimable value to the people of Australia. I know nothing of the evidence that was taken by the committee in camera, and which has been suppressed, but honorable members have heard the speech of the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), and they know what the Age published, and what the Prime Minister said when in London. There is no need for me to repeat those quotations. There is overwhelming evidence that the Australian Commonwealth Line, although, perhaps, not making the profit that there should be, has at least justified its existence. As the honorable member for Richmond has said, it is an essential service. As a Labour man, I act in the interests of the Labour movement. I was sent to this Parliament to do all in my power to help the working man. The Prime Minister, although we know full well that he is acting in the interests of large commercial activities, will deny that, and contend that he is acting in the best interests of Australia. Straws show which way the wind blows, and one can easily tell a man by the company he keeps.. The following paragraph appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald-

Sir Owen Cox entertained the Prime Min ister, Mr. Bruce, Mr. T. R. Bavin, and several other representative citizens at the Hotel Australia at luncheon yesterday to meet Mr. O. Thompson, of the Aberdeen Line of Steamers.

I believe that Mr. Thompson is a big wig of the Conference Line. If at the invitation of Tom Walsh I had tea with

Johannsen, of Sydney, O’Neill, of Melbourne, and Woodsworth, of South Australia, and then came to the House and moved a motion to benefit the Seamen’s Union, I would be told that I was acting under the direction of the leaders of the union. And it might be true that they were the source from which I got my inspiration, directions, and facts. So I suggest that when the Prime Minister dines with Sir Owen Cox and Mr. O. Thompson, of the Aberdeen Line, and subsequently proposes to take action to dispose of the Commonwealth Shipping Line, the two events are more than mere coincidence. This debate has at least stirred the Government into some show of activity. Instead of brushing lightly aside the views of honorable members on this side regarding the Shipping Line,. Ministers have had to sit up and take notice ; they have brought two of their big guns to bear, and have not been content to allow the fight to be carried on by the mere rank and file. The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), and the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), have spoken, and I understand that the Minister for Markets and Migration (Mr. Paterson) will try to confound the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart), who referred scathingly to the volte face on the part of that Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Hill) . They were different men, and held different views before they sat on the Treasury bench.

Mr Scullin:

– That was when they were “ switching on the light.”

Mr YATES:

– Yes, and telling the Hughes Government to “ drop the loot.” They said in those days that the Nationalist Ministry was tinkering with the finances of the country, just as we now say that the present Government is tinkering with the vital interests of the nation, and handing over to those whom they serve in Parliament a great essential service.

Mr Fenton:

– That is to please the contributors to their election .funds.

Mr YATES:

– Of course, money.is the great driving force, but as we on this side of the House have to draw upon our unions for election expenses, I do not cavil at the financial support given to those who represent the wealthy interests of the community. When, however, after an election campaign, during which every newspaper in the Commonwealth was barracking for them, and every big purse was pouring money into their election funds, they say that they come from the country with a mandate to sell the Commonwealth Line, they know that they lie. The policy with which the Government won the election was “Down with Bolshevism.” Were not the hoardings placarded with posters showing Tom Walsh jumping on the Union Jack, the map of Australia splashed with red, and the serpent of communism. The cry of the ministerial candidates was, “ For God’s sake pay no attention to the sale of the woollen mills or the relief of the wealthy land-owners from taxation. We want you to see only the menace of Walsh and Johannsen. Return us to power and we shall deport these terrible men.” The people were deceived into granting their prayer. Walsh and Johannsen have not been deported, but the Government is about to deport the Shipping Line to - put it on the British register. Of course, there is a smattering of patriotism in that. If, I must accept something that is not Australian, let it be British, but do not tell me that the conditions in the British mercantile marine are as good as those which our Australian seamen enjoy. As an Australian I am proud of what my country has done. In every branch of activity, from industry to the fine arts, the Australian people have excelled. Great achievements stand to the credit of this nation, which is an off-shoot of British stock, and is flourishing as, unfortunately, the original stock has no opportunity to flourish. When I think of all that the Australian people have done, I am not ready to lift my hat to any man in the world.

The honorable members who subscribed their names to the interim report of the Public Accounts Committee and are now denying the statements in that document, will have to sit up and take notice when the next general election takes place, because their attitude will be broadcast to the people. Whatever other expedients the Government may adopt in order to secure a new lease of power, the Red Flag, Tom Walsh, and Bolshevism, are cocks that will not fight for them again. Honorable members opposite will have to face the facts and the wrath of the primary .producer, whom the Commonwealth Shipping Line has benefited more than the Seamen’s Union or any other body of industrialists. Some honorable, members opposite have done their best to prove that the Line has not been a factor in the reducing of freights, but the Public Accounts Committee which investigated the Line, and on which the Government had a majority of the representation, reported : -

For some years, due largely to the then prevailing conditions, the result of the operations of the Commonwealth Government Line showed substantial profits, and the Line was instrumental in enabling shippers in Australia to get their goods to the overseas markets at reasonable rates, because, it was stated, the presence of the Line not only exerted a considerable influence in restraining increases in freights, but in many instances actual reductions in rates made by the Line were almost simultaneously adopted by the other shipping companies. For example, it was claimed that the reduction of 10s. per ton in freight rates forced by Mr. Larkin early in 1923 had resulted in a saving of over £2,000,000 a year in Australia’s freight charges.

The. honorable member for. Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) said that the Commonwealth Line was a factor in maintaining high freights and only reduced them after the Conference had decided to do so. I should not’ take much exception to that statement, if the honorable member had not been among those who signed the document I have just quoted. As the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes)- and the honorable member- for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) have said, the only test that can be applied to the Line is - did it have an influence on freights ? If so, how do - the benefits it conferred compare with the losses sustained in operating the Line! The right honorable member for North Sydney quoted the damning statement made by Viscount Inchcape. I doubt if there is a man in the whole universe who wields a greater influence on shipping throughout the world than he does. The ramifications of his business extend to every port of the globe, and even in the Australian coastal Shipping Combine his is the dominant influence. Yet this man, great though he is, admitted that he could not stand up’ against ‘;the Commonwealth Shipping Line ‘if ‘-the Australian Govern ment was prepared to fight him, and engage in the shipping business in earnest; therefore, he offered to buy out the Commonwealth Line or sell some of his own interests to the Commonwealth. That offer is conclusive evidence that the Commonwealth Line has exercised an influence upon freights between Europe and Australia. I, as an occasional consumer of imported goods, am not substantially benefited by a reduction in freight; but these charges are vital to the producers, whose goods are sold on the world’s markets. Perhaps the Minister for Markets and Migration (Mr. Paterson) will say what effect the sale of the Commonwealth Shipping Line will have upon the taxpayers who to-day are paying for the Paterson butter stabilization scheme. Not that I object to the proposal of which the honorable member was the author. In advocating a decent standard of living the Labour party has not thought merely of the wages men. At one time during the war, when there was a possibility that the farmer might not be able to sell his wheat, we were prepared to pay to him and his family the basic wage, plus a fair margin for profit on his production, and then to try to find a market overseas- for his wheat. That is proof that we on this side of the House desire the primary producer to get a fair deal; so I invite the Minister for Markets and Migration to deny that the Commonwealth Shipping ‘ Line has been of benefit to the man on the land. The Attorney-General stated that the Line bad been beneficial in that it had provided refrigerated space for the primary producers. I regret that the tendency to determine the usefulness of public utilities solely by their profit-making capacity ia growing. In my opinion, public utilities may be of such great indirect benefit, to the people that the loss of a few thousand pounds annually in conducting them is not worth consideration. Lord Inchcape has made it quite clear that he regards the competitive power of the Australian Commonwealth Line as* serious. I should like to know why it is that the gentlemen who have been drawing such large fees as directors of this Line have not been able to make it pay. Either they are not competent to do their work, dr” else they are managing the concern badly.

Mr Gregory:

– They would have to increase freights to make the Line pay.

Mr YATES:

– If the Line -were established with the primary object of making money it might be necessary to increase freights, but I suggest that even the Prime Minister himself has not always considered that that was an essential. This aspect of the case is mentioned on page 5 of the Public Accounts Committee’s report, from which I quote the following -

The Prime Minister further explained that it was contemplated, in fact, it would be found necessary, to sell some of the ships, and although no provision was made therefor in the bill it was proposed to leave the proceeds of such sales with the board for utilization as working capital or for the purchase of new tonnage. What was required for Australia, Mr. Bruce added, was a Line with tonnage suitable to. Australian trade, a Line which could be conducted on a reasonable basis of expense, and which would give an indication of what were proper freights to be charged by other lines.

Those remarks were made by Mr. Bruce in July, 1923, when the Commonwealth Shipping Bill was before this House. I submit thai so far from discontinuing our shipping business we should be enlarging it. The Government should transfer the £130,000 mail contract from the Orient Line to its own Line and, as I pointed out in the report which I made after toy visit to New Guinea as a member of the Royal Commission on the Navigation Act, the £55,000 annual subsidy which is being paid to Burns, Philp and Company Limited, for operating black labour ships in New Guinea waters could also be transferred to the Commonwealth Line and it should be made responsible for the shipping service there. I consider that the Line should operate wherever shipping business is to be got. Although the report of the Public Accounts Committee is couched in timorous language, it contains ample justification for extending the ramifications of the Line. I say this in spite of the fact, that it has been drafted to give effect to the wishes of the Government. I regret that the Government did not see fit to cut down the administrative expenses of the Line immediately the committee’s report was submitted to it. The committee’s recommendation in. this re spect appears on page 20 of the report, and is as follows: -

As legislative action will be necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the committee - in whatever form the Government may decide to submit them to Parliament - the committee is of opinion that there is no justification meantime for the continuance oi the present expensive and inharmonious Board of Directors, and it recommends that the appointments of the present members of the board be terminated simultaneously, and as early as possible. Mr. Larkin’s appointment terminates in August, 1028, but he has, on more than one occasion, expressed a desire to be relieved of his appointment, and hasactually tendered, his resignation in, at least, one instance. Sir William Clarkson’s appointment expires in August, 1027, whilst Mr. Farquhar’s present appointment is held subject to one month’s notice on either side.

There is no justification whatever for the Government’s inactivity in this respect. Had it immediately cut down the administrative expenses in the way suggested, the position would not have been nearly so serious from its point’ of view. It cannot be denied that inefficient management has seriously affected the business. In spite of all that honorable members opposite have said about the lack of influence of the (Line upon primary production, I assert that the position of our producers would be infinitely worse than it is had these vessels not been operating. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) said that all that the primary producer, wants is to be left alone, and the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Foster) endorsed his statement. I interjected to the effect that our experience of the primary producers in South Australia was decidedly different from that. It is well known that this year South Australia will experience probably the worst season she has- had for the last ten years, and no one- regrets this more than I do, for I realize the extent to which the prosperity of the State as a whole depends upon the prosperity of her primary producers. Only last week I read in - a newspaper that a meeting of primary producers in South Australia had decided to request the Government to make advances to them for the purchase of seed wheat to help them out of their present parlous condition. I have no objection to primary producers being assisted in this way when they have been badly hit. Time of tor time governments’ have come to the aid of the farmers in South Australia, as well as in other States. Advances for seed wheat have been made frequently on the understanding that the money would be repaid; but the repayments have been deferred year after year, and ultimately the amounts owing have been written off the books. Superphosphates, wire netting, and other commodities have been provided under similar conditions ; and on many occasions governments have assisted the farmers to shift their starving stock to localities where feed was’ available. I mention these facts to show that the primary producer does not always want to be left alone. I sincerely trust that this Line will not be sold, for, otherwise, the farmers will be left at the mercy of the Shipping Combine, which may be trusted to be as indifferent to their welfare in peace time as it was in war time. I have no doubt that immediately the competition of our government-owned ships is removed, the highest possible freights will be extracted from our primary producers, with the result, as the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) stated this afternoon, that we shall be required to increase the bounties that are already payable in respect of various commodities which we market. Even now we are spending large sums on wine, canned fruit and cotton bounties. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Parsons) quite rightly inquired last week what steps the Government proposed to take to assist the viticulturists in South Australia, who have recently been stricken by the severest frosts that have ever been known there. This industry has in the past few years astounded us by . its productivity. This is the first time it has been hit in such a disastrous manner, and it is entitled to ask the Government to do something for the growers collectively, to safeguard them against further disasters of the kind.

Mr.Killen. - Does not the honorable member think that those primary producers should have been better treatedin the past, and that they are willing to be left alone now?

Mr YATES:

– I arrived in South Australia in the year1878, and have always taken a keen interest in that State. I do not know of any Labour Government that has failed to give the primary producers a fair deal. I have been through all the big droughts in South Australia, and know what those mcn have suffered. I remember when the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Foster) had a long black beard, and was Minister for Public Works in South Australia ; and I have a keen recollection of politics generally in that State. If the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen) desires it, I can turn up every act which was passed to succour our producers when they required assistance. Ican refer to the time when Tom Price, the Labour Premier, threatened that if the farmers were not supplied with pure sugar, he would see that it was imported for them; also when he threatened to import wire netting if the farmers were not given a fair deal by the monopoly then in the hands of the Darlings, Dreyfus and Dalgetys. I know, from the bounties granted, what this Parliament has done, also of the relief granted to producers by reducing the rates on the carriage of starving stock. If the honorable member considers he can show me where the primary producers have been attacked by a Labour Government, let him speak.

Mr Killen:

– They have always introduced legislation adverse to the primary producers.

Mr YATES:

– One of the things which remain prominent in my mind, which I could not understand for a long time, 5s the system of fixity of tenure which applied to pastoral leases. Crawford Vaughan used to call it “ Soonerising.” I remember the story of George Fife Angas, who, it is said, when he first came to South Australia, stood on the highest hill and said, “ All the land that I can see I claim for myself, and all the land that I cannot see I claim for my son John.” And he still has it. I challenge the honorable member for Riverina to show where the primary producers have been attacked by a Labour Government. All this talk about hostility between Labour and the primary producers is a myth. I have spoken to primary producers, and told them that the Labour party was accused of making their position untenable, and robbing them. I asked them whether they could tell me of any working man who had retired on what he made out of farmers or graziers.

Mr Killen:

– I can.

Mr YATES:

– The honorable member can quote only a few exceptions to the genera] rule. It was John Darling who, although not Premier, stood behind the “ throne “ and manufactured opinion to the effect that Labour wanted to nationalize the. ice cream trade, pie stalls, and everything else. John Darling, who was always warning the farmers to “ Watch Jack Price, watch Crawford Vaughan; keep an eye on them,” died worth nearly £2,000,000. I am stating facts; I have always contended that every man must be paid a living wage. If this industry cannot pay a living wage, it must be reconstructed. The worker does not want to rob the primary producer. He wants his pound of flesh, “ and not one drop of blood.” There are times when the primary producer does not wish to be left alone, when he comes to the government for assistance. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) quoted figures to show that our press telegrams transactions disclose a loss of £270,000 a year merely to provide our big newspapers with a profit. Those newspapers have no hesitation in increasing their prices in accordance with their costs. The worker pays whatever charge they make, and he is under no obligation for what he receives. As a taxpayer he has to pay heavily for the profits of the press, a matter which has never been properly voiced on the floor of this House.

Many of our developmental railways were built merely because of the pull exerted by representatives of the rural industries, and wore taken to centres remote from those which common sense dictated. Those railways are losing money, and that loss is being made up by the taxpayers. Much as those taxpayers deplore the losses, there has never been a suggestion that the railways should be handed over to private enterprise. If that were done, private enterprise would not cohsider the farmer, who would have to pay whatever prices it. demanded, or not use its transport facili ties. The Treasurer quoted a statement alleged to have been made by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) in. regard to the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. The Navigation Commission made certain inquiries outside of its proper scope, and the honorable member for Rourke considered it his duty to address the document that he did to His Excellency the Governor-General. Apparently the Treasurer quoted from an uncorrected report. The honorable gentleman tried to make it appear that the honorable member for Bourke made certain statements applying to theposition of the Line to-day, which is not the case.’ His statement applied to the position as it was in 1922, at a time when the “ tie “ existed, and when Larkin was handinglove with the Combine. I shall quote from the actual statement, which was recorded on the 10th September, 1925. It reads -

page 1244

QUESTION

THE SHIPPING COMBINE- ITS OPERATION

Different countries, different combines, different forms of “Ties.” They may be of national advantage, beneficial to transporters and producers alike. On the other hand, they may bc the instruments of economic despotism on the part of transporting combines, and of the economic enslavement of the producing elements within controlled territory. Companies within a combine operating an allocated industry or territory may develop their own peculiar “ tie.” The blackmanned boats operating on the north-west coast of Australia, per medium of Dalgety and Company Limited, furnish one example. The Germans had another operating inNew Guinea. In the language of M. W. H. Lucas, of Burns, Philp, and Company, it “ shackled the settlers in ever-tightening bonds.” Then Mr. Lucas was given charge of the Expropriation Board, and Burns, Philp, and Company took over the “ever-tightening bonds.” The Commonwealth Government Shipping Line hasa “tie.” It is designated an “agreement.”. For a brief period there was fierce rivalry between the Government Line, and the Combine. The Imperial Shipping Committee of 1922 desired peace. It opened up negotiations. The Combine was perfectly ready, so it said, to admit the claims of the Commonwealth Line to participate in Commonwealth trade, provided it became a part of the British Combine and consented to be “ governed by the sama conditions.” The Commonwealth Line replied that, “ having regard to Australian legislation and opinion,” it could not accept those conditions.

The Imperial Shipping Committee urged that the “ deferred rebate “ tie of the combine and the “ agreement” tie of the Commonwealth Line could be used in “ amicable concurrence.” It suggested that occasional shipments with one or the other should not bo regarded as a breach of their respective “ ties.” It urged the two parties to go into conference and come to an agreement, if possible; if not, the committee would consider the position and report.

The conference took place as suggested. There was no reference back to the committee. The Commonwealth Government Line and the British Shipping Combine agreed to work in “ amicable concurrence.” Kates are not lowered by competitive acts of the Commonwealth Line. Nor are they as high as they would be if the Commonwealth Line did not exist. The Combine cannot raise rates to a level that will permit the Commonwealth Line to pay, without exposing the exorbitant rates charged by black-manned vessels. The Commonwealth Line is, therefore, a public benefit.

I heard the honorable member make that quotation. I searched for it in the report of the Navigation Committee, but could not find it. I have since been supplied with the document in which it appears, and honorable members will recognize that there is not a great deal in it. There is much more than I would like to say and could have said, but sufficient has been said to convince at least the people of Australia that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) has served a very useful purpose. He has shown ‘the way in which the Government should go, and, if it will not be so guided, the manner in which the people should act at the next election.

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- This is a very important debate, and as I represent a constituency which is composed largely of primary, producers, it is but right that I should state the reasons for the attitude which I intend to adopt. Although, as a general principle, I am opposed to government-owed enterprises, I recognize that there are occasions when intervention by the Government may be justified. When it was suggested some years ago that we should have an Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers I accepted that as a fitting occasion for the Government to intervene. Lord Inchcape’s shipping interests then loomed very largely. To Australians they appeared to be more widespread after the war than prior to that conflict. Considering the troubled state of affairs that then existed, and the imperative need there was for the shipment of our produce overseas, it was necessary to protect the primary producers and the general public of Australia. It appeared to me that Lord Inchcape’s Combine had an extraordinarily strong grip on maritime affairs as they affected Australia. The chief object I had in mind when I supported the establishment of the Commonwealth Line was to keep down freights to a fair and reasonable level, with a view to protecting our producers. I then considered that they were in some danger. But, notwithstanding all that has been said, I have come to the conclusion that the Line has not kept down freights.” The extent to which it has operated in that direction is problematical. I have no definite evidence to guide me to a decision. The right’ honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) launched what some honorable “members are pleased to call a. bombshell when he read documents that were supposed to be confidential. Copies of the originals were supplied to the Public Accounts Committee, and were treated by it as confidential ; but, by some strange process, a private member has been able to secure copies, and quote them in this House in support of the contention that the Commonwealth Line has kept down freights on more than one occasion. Whatever influence the Line may have exerted in that direction some years ago, it is clear that it is not keeping down freights at the present time. Last July Holt’s Line was instrumental in securing a reduction, although the credit for it was given to the Commonwealth Line. There is another factor which makes the continuance of the Line an impossible proposition. When the present Government handed over control to the Shipping Board in 1923, the value of the fleet was written down to what was considered to be its then market value. The board was given power to sell many units, and to apply the proceeds in a certain way. It sold all except seven good ships, and used the money which it received to defray working expenses. If it had not clone that, and the Government had asked this House periodically to provide money for the running of the Line, the public would have realized the true position much more clearly than they may to-day. If the Line is to be of the slightest benefit to the producers, its fleet must be augmented by the addition of a number of up-to-date vessels. According to the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Marks), five or six good ships cannot be constructed under a cost of about £6,000,000. If on the lower value which was placed upon the vessels the Line has been unable to avoid a loss of £595,000 a year, how can we expect it to make a profit if it has to find interest on an additional capital of £6,000,000, and pay away a greater sum in running expenses? We have been informed that the cost of running the seven vessels of the Line is annually £220,000 greater than that of seven similar ships on the British register. What business man would say that in those circumstances there is any future for the Line? The further we go the greater will be our indebtedness. Instead of being a check on the Conference, the Line will be forced to charge high freights to balance its accounts. These are facts that have not been satisfactorily met. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that we can adopt no course other than to sell the Line. We are approaching prewar conditions. An increasing number of ships is engaging in the trade to Australia. If we can further develop our primary industries and increase our exports, the competition for the trade will become more keen. We cannot expect our products to be carried at a loss. It has been said that the British companies are not earning more than4½ per cent. Surely we do not grudge them that! Prior to the war, ships of the Conference Lines, up to 15,000 tons register, were trading to Australia. We have now returned to almost normal conditions, and larger and faster vessels are being built. The refrigerated space provided is greater and more reliable than in the past. If the Conference Lines and other lines competing for the Australian trade were to treat us unfairly, the Government could take effective action against them at a less cost per annum than the sum we are now losing on the Australian Commonwealth Line. Members of the Public Accounts Committee have clearly shown that the reduction in freight made in July, 1926, was brought about entirely by Holt’s Line.

Mr.Nelson. - Who told you that?

Mr ATKINSON:

– The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), whom I accept as a more reliable authority in this matter than the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). The honorable member for Forrest, as a member of the committee, saw the documents and knew the whole of the facts. The honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates) stressed the point that the interim report contains a certain definite assertion. That report was furnished upon the evidence tendered up to that time. It was explained by the honorable member for Forrest that he objected to the presentation of that report, which was made largely because the Shipping Board implored the committee to give it. When the chief witness, Mr. Larkin, was examined, his evidence so completely changed the opinion of the committee that it re-examined other witnesses. We are told that more tonnage than is required for the carriage of our primary produce is offering, and, if 40 per cent. of that tonnage were kept away from Australia, the remaining ships would be fairly busy and freights could be reduced.

Mr Fenton:

– That is an argument for the retention of the Commonwealth Line.

Mr ATKINSON:

– Not at all. It merely shows that it has not influenced freights. Although I agreed in the first place to the establishment of the Line, I am now satisfied that it is impossible to conduct it cheaply enough to make it pay. Instead of keeping down freights, its effect ismerely to set a standard that suits the British companies. Taking the Australian wages for operating a 6,000 ton vessel at £100, the wages for a similar British ship would amount to £32.4.1. The American figures would be £42.21, the Swedish £24.15, and theDanish £15.44.

Mr Nelson:

– Why not also quote the cost of running a Japanese vessel ?

Mr ATKINSON:

– I have given sufficient evidence that the Commonwealth Line could not be operated sufficiently cheaply to benefit the producers. Of course, the Line has not had fair treatment from the seamen and the wharf labourers, who, instead of appreciating their good industrial conditions, practically claimed the ships as their own property. I admit that since the passage of the Crimes Act the attitude of those men has been more reasonable than before. If honorable members opposite frankly told the unionists that they had taken a wrong view, and were killing the goose that laid their golden eggs; if the Seamen’s Union likes to “ cruel the pitch “ as far as the Australian Commonwealth Line is concerned, why should we ask the public to provide more money and ships in order that it may play greater havoc. The sooner the Line is sold under the conditions laid down by the Government, the better it will be for the whole of Australia.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- It will occasion neither shock nor violent, surprise when I inform honorable members that I propose to support the motion now before the House. I apprehend from the speech of the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Atkinson) that he joins with those who are determined by all means, more or less fair or foul as the case may be, to discredit all Australian enterprises, merely because they are Australian enterprises, and for no other or more cogent reason.

Mr Atkinson:

– That is rather a free translation of what I said.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Having regard to the lateness of the hour, it is necessary to epitomize the somewhat lengthy speech of the honorable member, and I have put it briefly as I understand it. More than that cannot reasonably be expected of any honorable member. Having disposed of the remarks of the honorable member, I propose to devote a portion of my speech to that of the Prime Minister. I listened to his reply to the Leader of the Opposition with great attention. As he leaned on the despatch box in an attitude more of sorrow than of anger, I was “intrigued,” as a modern novelist would say, to know just of what he reminded me ; whether- of a sculptured representation of Agamemnon at the fall of Troy, or the figure of Destiny weeping in the graveyard of Australian enterprise. For either character, his attitude, manner, and general appearance were eminently well suited, and I, with other honorable members, listened to his address with closeattention. There was something in his manner which excited sympathy rather than resentment. He made his apologies with difficulty, and without enthusiasm, and with an absence of a necessary accompaniment of real contrition, the promise to refrain from doing the like again. There are things which ought to be listened to in silence. You, Mr. Speaker, would say that one of them is a speech addressed to you in this chamber, an academic rather than a practical view. Sermons, too, should be received in silence, nasal and vocal. So too, should the description of a prize fight on the wireless. A like measure of respectful attention should be paid to the dirges delivered from time to time by the Prime Minister in the tones of a toastmaster at a funeral. So much by way of introduction. I compliment my honorable Leader (Mr. Charlton) on the foundation that he laid so well, for the admirable case that has been constructed upon it by himself and by honorable gentlemen on this side who followed him. So. destructive has been the attack upon the Government that it would be painting the lily and gilding refined gold for me to enter into details upon the argument at this stage of the debate. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition chiefly upon the success which he has achieved in obtaining willynilly from the head of the Government a public statement altogether too long delayed. We have had the history of the Australian Commonwealth Line in detail more than once, but I think I should set out in brief the history of this motion of want of confidence. Last Friday morning a perfect fusillade of questions was addressed to the Prime Minister concerning the proposed sale of this great national service. With what suavity, courtesy, and good form he proceeded to answer those questions without supplying any information ! Nothing was wanting in his demeanour. He was evasively polite, perfectly, and in the most gentlemanly manner, silent. One could not help feeling that beneath his breath he was saying - “ This is the perfect poise for a Prime Minister. . Never under any circumstances lose your temper when you have the heavy stick in your hand. Ifthis were Billy Hughes he would perhaps answer a few of these questions, and then inform the House that he did not propose to answer any more questions on that subject, ending his’ performance for the edification of those immediately about him with a torrent of private blasphemy.” The right honorable gentleman, no doubt, felt that he was acting in a much better, nicer and more parliamentary manner than that. I confess that at the end of question time, the honours were with the right honorable gentleman ; but in the afternoon the position changed. The Leader of the Opposition, withthat consummate tact for which he is distinguished, succeeded in getting the consent of members of the Government to give notice of a motion of want of confidence in them; a performance unprecedented in history, and doubtless achieved because the Government was thoroughly conscious that the vote of want of confidence was, under the circumstances, well deserved. When the Prime Minister entered the Chamber at 3.45 p.m., his suavity of manner and his perfect Oxford demeanour had deserted him. He did not say that the debate would be continued on Tuesday ; not for a moment. He did not suggest that it would be debated at any time. He merely moved the adjournment of the House simply because it was Friday afternoon, until the following Tuesday, on which day the House would ordinarily meet. He gave no satisfaction to the Leader of the Opposition as to the discussion of the motion of want of confidence. Early in the year a report was tabled, and it remained dormant until the resumption of our sittings at the end of September. We are now in mid-November. It was obvious that the Prime Minister and his Government were reluctant to declare their policy concerning the Line. But the action of this party through its leader, forced the Government into the open, and compelled it to declare its long delayed policy. The speech of the right honorable gentleman was that of one who accuses himself by his excuses. He showed clearly by the tone, tenor and substance of his address that he would much rather have evaded the responsibility for disclosing this . un-Australian and disloyal policy in regard to one of the chief- instrumentalities of the Australian people. He went along his road of pleasant platitudes and excuses, until he had to declare the fate of the Australian Commonwealth Line, and then there was no longer a polished manner. The scene, was changed -

Beside the block the sullen headsman stood,.

And gleamed the broad axe in his hand’ that soon must drip with blood.

And so he passed sentence upon this Australian institution. The Opposition has assuredly accomplished useful service in focussing public attention on this vital issue by forcing the Government to show its hand in respect of theLine. As the debate has proceeded condemnation of the Government has come from all sides of the House, and from members of every shade of political opinion. Amongst others, it has come from some of the most able and courageous men on the Ministerial side, who understand the position better than most others in the House.

As to the undertaking itself, I do not propose to make the speech I had prepared, but I shall make just one general observation. I have heard from honorable members opposite that this Line will not pay. The answer to that has; been given almost a score of times from one side of the House or the other. But I am not entirely concerned as to whether the Line pays. That aspect can soon be disposed of. The whole standard of living of the Australian people is, if you like, artificial. What does the arbitration system rest upon if not on. the principle that we are not prepared to hand over the workers of this country to the inexorable law of supply and demand, and buying in the cheapest market. What is the basis of protection of industry, whatever, may he one’s fiscal faith.? We are determined to set a beacon light, an . example for the world, because we have recognized that of all things cheap the cheapest in history is the human, unit, and he has been treated as the.- cheapest, even cheaper than dirt itself. Because of that we have set up for him an artificial standard of which we are . not ashamed.So our first answer to the statement that the Line does not pay is that, if by that term is meant that it does not and cannot pay in the ordinary sense of showing receipts in excess of expenditure after allowing for depreciation, and . showing profits, that is not the only or the final test that the Labour party applies to that great institution. As a matter of fact, the question asked by honorable members opposite is not “Does it pay?” but, “Whom does it pay?” If it pays or serves the nation, it is condemned in their eyes, but if it pays or serves that little coterie of persons who, somewhere beneath the surface are trustees for that self-serving institution known as private enterprise, it is justified in their eyes. That is not the standard by which we judge it. The Line has been tried by every test and justified - first, as to its actual cost, and secondly, as to the service which it renders to the community in restraining the avarice of those who would wring undue profits from the people of Australia - and a score of witnesses in this chamber have multiplied proofs that disinterested national service has given in pounds, shillings and pence to our people infinitely larger measure than it has taken from them. And it has responded to this further test that it is the basis and beginning of ah Australian mercantile marine, that it has a national significence, and means as much to Australia as their national mercantile marine means to other countries. If there was one thing that pleased me more than another during the debate, it was the disclosure by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) that the great and notorious head of the Shipping Combine had communicated with Australia for the purpose of inquiring whether the Commonwealth would be prepared to buy him out or to sell out to him. The fact that Australia, with only 6,000,000. people is yet strong enough to arrest the course and influence the direction of one of the greatest capitalist combinations the world has ever, known aroused in me a feeling, of. intense, pride. For that alone

I would be pleased to support this. motion.

But I come to the point to which I more particularly wish to address myself. On the 18th March, 1926, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) asked the Prime Minister -

Has any offer been made for the purchase of the “ Bay “ Line of Steamers since the Commonwealth offered them for sale? If so, what amount was offered, and by whom?

The Prime Minister replied -

No offer has been made for the purchase of the “ Bay “ Line of Steamers.

In the report of the Public Accounts Committee I find this paragraph -

In May, 1925, tenders were invited from British subjects or companies for the purchase of the Commonwealth Line, which then comprised 27 steamers, namely, five “ Bays,” two “ Dales,” five “ D “ class, four “ E “ class, and eleven “ ex-enemy.” The terms of sale stipulated that before the completion of the purchase, the successful tenderer had to enter into an agreement to conduct between Australia and the United Kingdom certain specified services by these vessels for a minimum period of seven years; no increase in rates of freight or passage money was to be made without reference to and approval by the committee to be appointed, and the independence of the Line - free from the control of any “ ring “ or “ combine “ - had to be maintained.

That paragraph relates to what occurred in May, 1925, and the question of the Leader of the Opposition -was asked on the 18th March, 1926. I have good reason for believing that the answer given by the Prime Minister was not candid or accurate. I shall state the facts. On the 21st January, 1926, a cablegram was sent by the chairman of the Shipping Board in London to the other members of the board in Australia, in these terms -

Convey following to Prime Minister privately and telegraph his reply as soon as possible. Have inquiry from British interests whether Commonwealth Government would consider offer about £3,500,000 for ten ships now in commission. Conditions practically as per May tender form except possible limitation services to our current itinerary. If Governprepared sell, underwriting assured subject only certain usual but important stipulations re inspection ships, investigations, earnings, &c. Financial arrangements would necessarily OCCUpY few weeks after receipt reply. Funds would be raised without any publicity.

I ask honorable members to note the concluding words of that cablegram from the chairman of the board in London-

Remind you if this last offer refused, Government must be prepared, ultimately face new building programme as- Line cannot stand still. If Government prepared consider will remain London few. weeks to advance negotiations,

On the 25th January, the members of the board in Australia replied to the chairman in London -

Have seen Prime Minister hen1, who is communicating with Cabinet, Melbourne, and expects us to telegraph you Wednesday, Thurs day.

On the 28th January they sent the following further cablegram to Mr. Larkin -

Prime Minister states subject price being not less than £3,500,000 Government prepared consider offer same terms and conditions May tender. If necessary, willing consider some modification clause 5a provided such modified clause contains satisfactory assurance that a reasonable service would be maintained between the United Kingdom and Continental and Australian ports. In . any event, request you negotiate with view submitting as early as possible definite firm offer setting forth precisely what purchasers willing to pay, terms and extent of undertaking prepared to give, when Cabinet will place before Parliament for confirmation. Purchasers must clearly understand that any agreement arrived at must ho subject to ratification by Commonwealth Parliament. Presume our decode £3,500,000 correct.

A further reply was sent on the same day in the following terms on behalf of the Prime Minister : -

My opinion you may definitely rely if Cabinet accepts there will be no difficulty “obtaining ratification Commonwealth Parliament.

Notwithstanding the existence of a strong Nationalist party of independent men and minds, and a strong Country party, determined, independently qf the Nationalist influence, to preserve the interests of the primary producer - and they are all strong, for they themselves have said it - I am quite prepared to believe that the Prime Minister was quite right when, off his own bat, he telegraphed or caused to be telegraphed to the chairman of the Shipping Board in London, “ You may take it that once Cabinet agrees, Parliament is settled, because the Nationalist and Country party vote with me, and numbers count.” When the right honorable gentleman told my leader that no offer had been, made for the purchase of the “ Bay “ line of steamers, he said what was technically true, but was in spirit and substance absolutely inaccurate and misleading. The Prime Minister should not use hia position to mislead the Leader of the Opposition on an important public question. If .there, were (?0.”).e facts which he felt that he could- not disclose, his duty was to take the responsibility of saying, “ I am not in a position in the public interest to tell the honorable member what is happening.” I make this further comment on the latter part of the first paragraph of that cablegram, that it discloses a deliberate attempt on the part of the Chairman to force a. sale of the Line. It also discloses, in my opinion, a policy of disloyalty on the part of the Chairman of tha Board to the Commonwealth of Australia and his fellow directors, and an impudent attempt to dragoon this Parliament and the Government into adopting his own craven policy . “ with respect to the Line. Bit by bit the real facts of this case are coming to light. The right honorable member for North Sydney read some interesting cablegrams yesterday, and since then further information has been made available to us; but the policy of the Government, from beginning to end, has been one of utterly discreditable hush. I submit that when a committee of members of this Parliament is appointed to investigate a specific matter that committee is an agent of the Parliament, and the evidence that it gathers should be available to Parliament without discrimination. Although members of the Labour party were appointed to the Public Accounts Committee, owing to illness the main responsibility for sustaining the Australian viewpoint during the inquiry fell upon the shoulders of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley). He found himself in the position of having to accept certain evidence as confidential, or of refusing to listen to it. I am bound to say that the honorable member has justified the confidence that was reposed in him. He has not made public any of the confidential information which was placed before the committee on those terms notwithstanding that he has delivered a most interesting and informative speech during the debate. Honorable members who are of a suspicious turn of mind might assume that the honorable member has conveyed certain of this confidential information to me, but I assure them that it is not sp. The information which I have has percolated’ through . to- me from various sources; Some .of it came from the cablegrams which the right honorable member for North Sydney read last night, but I have in my hand copies of certain other cablegrams which have not hitherto been published, but which reveal the attitude that the Chairman of the Board has adopted towards the Line. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) discussed at length the battle of the freights, and referred to the entirely sympathetic manner which Mr. Larkin has always been prepared to adopt towards any suggestion that freights should be maintained at a high level. On the 1st December, 1925, the following cablegram was despatched from London to the board in Australia -

It is proposed to increase freight rates from £5 per ton measurement to £5 10s., and objectionable cargoes by £1 per ton ; Chairman is in accord.

The board replied “ Cannot agree.” The increase did not take place. On the 31st May, 1926, the board cabled to Mr. Larkin suggesting that a substantial cut’ should be made in the prevailing freight rates. No reply came from Mr. Larkin, and on the 14th June, 1926, the following cablegram was sent to him -

Board proposes to make an early announcement material reduction in rates for export wool, apples, other fruit, frozen meat, cheese, lard, . rabbits, hides, skins.

Mr. Larkin replied on the 15th June, “I definitely cannot agree;” but on the 12th July, the board announced drastic reductions in the rates. In the small village of Melbourne on the hanks of the Yarra, where I have the home to which I long to return, a newspaper called the Agc. is published. One day, in an uncharitable moment, I selected from its columns the following literary pearls respecting our Prime Minister: - “He is lacking in verbal chastity.” The Age also observed! “He indulges in cant which makes honest people sick,” and it added, “ If he has a conscience he can never be at ease with it.” In view of the reply which the right honorable gentleman gave to my leader’s question whether any offer had been made to purchase this Line of steamers, and of the evidence of trafficking that has taken place in respect to the disposal of the Line when no trafficking was supposed to be taking place and other evidences of polite disingenuousness, I am obliged to endorse the poetically expressed opinion of the Age that the Prime Minister is indeed “ lacking in verbal chastity.”

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- There is no need for me to apologise for the attitude that I intend to adopt on this question, for years ago I moved a motion in this Parliament to the effect that these ships should be sold at the first opportunity. I am still of that opinion. The Treasurer, in the course of his speech today, said that there was no economic justification for continuing to incur heavy expenditure to meet the losses that are sustained annually in operating the Line. I am glad that some honorable members recognise that the economic condition of Australia must be our paramount consideration. It shows that their outlook is changing. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) in the course of his speech, suggested that any measures that had been placed upon the statute-book by former Labour governments must be regarded as sacrosanct. I entirely disagree with that view. Honorable members opposite believe in socialization and nationalization, but we disbelieve in those policies, and consequently are entitled to do whatever we can to discontinue them. The wording of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition suggests that honorable members opposite desire, above all things, to promote the welfare of our primary producers. I regard their attitude in that respect as hypocritical. Their principal object is to maintain their policy of nationalization. I ask honorable members opposite what steps they have taken, when the interests of the producers have been prejudiced from time to time by the action of extremists in the various States of Australia? Many producers have been ruined by organizations with which honorable members opposite are associated, yet in not a single instance have they condemned the attitude of their supporters. I hope that the opportunity to amend the Navigation Act will present itself, and that the coastal provisions will be either suspended or repealed. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) made an eloquent appeal in the House yesterday, and I can quite appreciate his point of view. I consider that the right honorable gentleman acted in a statesmanlike manner when we were in the throes of war.

Mr Brennan:

– May we not have another war?

Mr GREGORY:

– It is quite possible, and then, no doubt, acts such as the member for North Sydney took will again be necessary. At the same time, we must not continually be threatened with the fear of war. I have not known the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) to take a prominent part in supporting any measure providing for the defence of Australia. The connexion of the right honorable member for North Sydney with ‘the Commonwealth Line makes him resemble on the present occasion one who, having fathered a child, christened it, watched it grow up up and marry, is now compelled to attend its burial. There is no reason why this Government should not bury this “ child “ as speedily as possible. The right honorable gentleman quoted some rather sensational cablegrams. I shall give my own impression of the position. The board was created in 1923, and was afforded a glorious opportunity to make a success of our mercantile fleet. That fleet originally cost the Australian Government £14,877,000, which, after deducting profits amounting to £3,673,000, was reduced to £11,204,000. That amount was written down to £4,725,000 to give the board every opportunity to make a success of the venture. Do honorable members ever realize that the country is paying interest on that £11,204,000? Are we again to be asked to write down the already greatly reduced cost, merely to give the board another chance? The country, particularly the primary ‘ producing section, has to foot the bill. Is there anything in the act which confers on the board power to create a mercantile policy for Australia? No. That is the duty of Parliament. Had Parliament said that it was prepared to pay an annual subsidy of £600,000 to the Line to cover the losses incurred each year, and to enable the board to reduce freights, the responsibility would be ours. The board, finding that an investigation was being made into its affairs, and fearing the imminent disclosure of the enormous losses that had accrued, evidently tried to curry favour with public opinion by reducing freights. That policy should have been directed by this Parliament. The board is usurpingthe functions of Parliament, and political agitation is being created by those who otherwise would resent such interference.

Mr Fenton:

– The Government handed the vessels over to the board practically unconditionally, and it deserves to be in the mess it now is in.

Mr GREGORY:

– The Government vested the fullest powers in the board, and made special provision in regard to the financing of the Line and the paying off of debentures from profits. Notwithstanding that, ships were sold to the value of £1,300,000. Where has that money gone? Surely, had it been the policy of Parliament to conduct the Line at a heavy loss it would have been made plain in the act, and the Government would have brought forward each session a certain amount to make good the losses that accrued. If concessions in freight were to be given to any section of the community at heavy losses to the Commonwealth, then Parliament, and not the board, should accept the responsibility. My reasons for opposing the carrying on of business undertakings by the Government are based on long experience. Even during this debate many innuendoes have been thrown across the chamber with regard to the conduct of this Line. Such undertakings are better left to private enterprise. It is impossible for this Line to compete with other shipping companies when its expenses are so much greater than theirs. One can recall the magnificent coastal service Australia enjoyed prior to the war. At least one-third of these steamers have been disposed of, simply because of the impossibility of competing with the shipping of other countries under our existing’ labour conditions. Our freights are from 100 to 200 per cent, higher than those charged in other parts of the world. We are ruining our producers merely because we disregard the economic aspect of the business. We have an Arbitration Court which ‘ fixes salaries. In 1923, when the ship-owners asked for a reduction of wages, Mr. Justice Powers stated that he could see no reason justifying such a reduction. He pointed out that the freight rates charged in Australia were five times as high as those elsewhere; that the freight from Melbourne to Adelaide was as great as that from Melbourne to England. He then dealt with the question of overtime, and pointed out that the captain of one of the Commonwealth boats had received £350 in a year for overtime. He said that on one trip by the Hobson’s Bay, from Australia to London, the captain had drawn, in overtime, an amount equivalent to 36.7 per cent, of his salary, and other officers had drawn 35 per cent. On a previous trip of that steamer the captain had drawn 38.58 per cent., in addition to his salary, and some of the officers 60 per cent. Yet honorable members opposite contend that the Line should be able to compete with the shipping of other countries. That is an economic impossibility, and it is now necessary to consider what our future obligations will be if the Line is continued. The other companies, knowing the heavy expense under which the Line is being run, will keep their rates at a level sufficiently high to enable them to earn large profits. I am satisfied that the rates charged to Australia are higher than those charged to many other countries. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) declined to give the authority for the figures which he quoted ; but from the information I have been able to obtain I am convinced that, although he used them in good faith, they are not genuine. Our statistics up to 1926 include freights and other charges. That practice is not followed in New Zealand, and it is impossible for us to obtain the information we require; but my inquiries show that freights are lower from New Zealand than from Australia to Britain. If the Line is to be continued, enormous sums will have to be found for the construction of additional vessels. In view of the enormous interest charge, the continuance of the Line cannot be to the advantage of the producers. Interest has to be paid, not on the book value of £4,700,000, but on the far larger sum which has been expended. The continuance of the Line will involve the expenditure of an additional £3,000,000 n or £4,000,000 annually. Mr. McCormack, Premier of Queensland, recently said that his Government would not carry on State enterprises at the expense of the people. Are we justified in continuing this venture, upon which we have lost almost £2,000,000 since the board was created.

Mr Forde:

– The Premier of Queensland did not refer to public transport facilities such as the railways.

Mr GREGORY:

– The less said about the management of the railways in Queensland, the better. If a Labour Minister were not in charge, the number of hands there would be considerably reduced.

Mr Forde:

– The Queensland Government has refused to increase freights and fares. They regard that as a subsidy to the people in the back country.

Mr GREGORY:

– There is a strong belief among the people of Queensland that their railways are considerably overmanned.

Mr Forde:

– I do not share that view.

Mr GREGORY:

– The railways are ong of the big assets that the State holds against the loan money that has been expended on their construction. Seeing that they lose over £1,000,000 annually, the asset would appear to be not a very good one. I approve of the action which was taken in war time by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), although on principle I am strongly opposed to the Government engaging in activities of this description. The Financial Review of Reviews, dealing with socialistic ventures, says: -

British shipping supremacy has been built up by private enterprise.

Why cannot we try to do something of the same sort? Why should we depend on borrowed money and fictitious conditions to build up the industries of this country? The quotation continues: -

It has not cost the nation a penny. It has added vastly to the nation’s welfare. It has been developed by individuals risking their own fortunes, acting on their own initiative, unfettered by departments and councils and committees and political agitators. It is today a monument to the success and efficiency of capitalism. American nationalized shipping has cost the American taxpayers 1,500 million dollars, it is losing public money day by day, it cannot compete against the capitalist shipping of Britain or any other big maritime country, and the United States Government is at its wits’ end to know what to do with its huge fleet of ocean white elephants - the fleet which not only the American politicians, but British socialists, declared would “ lick creation.”

We know that Canada has lost enormous sums, and we are acquainted with the peculiar effort which was made a little while ago in Tasmania to carry on work of this description. It is absolutely impossible for the State to compete with private enterprise. Let us consider the attitude of the workers and the people of the United States of America towards their railway system. In that country the wages are higher than they arc in Australia, good dividends are returned, and goods are carried at freights considerably lower than those which are charged in Australia. The railways pay annually £60,000,000 in taxation. Compare with that the attitude of the Labour organizations towards the railway system of Australia. The Railways Union Gazette recently published an article in terms antagonistic to the Labour representative who accompanied the industrial mission to the United States of America. It said -

Remember the names. Let them remind you of class collaboration. These four men do not like the class war. Rather than fight the class that owns the product of our collective labour, they would make peace with it. … New “ co-operation “ is rationalizing industry from the view-point of capitalism. Rationalizing industry from the workers’ view-point means the workers taking control of it. Cooperation demands a greater subjection of the interest of the worker to the interest of the master that employs him. As the employing interest seeks always-even in State railways - the return of surplus profit, co-operation can bc used only to the detriment of the workers, only to make them over-produce, to make them yield a higher output at a lower rate, to confuse them, to render them generally more easily exploitable. We want you to develop a deep contempt for the propaganda of cooperation, which is made among you to-day by chambers of manufactures, commissioners, and union leaders who have already been branded by the biggest general trade union gathering of Australia - the Australasian Congress of Trades Unions - as most reprehensible and treacherous.

That attitude was adopted two years ago towards the Commonwealth Line, and is being adopted to-day towards interstate vessels. We are perfectly well aware that hold-ups are occurring, that job control is being practised. How can we hope to build up a country when political pressure is brought to bear as to whether a Government shall do its duty in these matters? There is no justification for the belief that the continued operation of this Line will benefit the primary producer. The quantity of goods that it carries is very small compared with our total export- trade. Its expenses have been enormous. Surely if the ships can be sold on the condition that for a period of ten years they will remain on either the British or the Australian register and trade along our coast, that is as far as honorable members should ask the Government to go. The need for economy is apparent. Since 1920 Great Britain has paid off £190,000,000 of her national debt, America £1,500,000,000, and Canada, £13,000,000, whilst we have added £309,000,000 to ours. Yet honorable members refer glibly to a probable expenditure of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 to raise the fleet to a position in which it can give effective service, and of bearing a loss of £600,000 a year. The wisest course is to get rid of this incubus. My vote will be recorded in favour of the sale of these vessels. If we find that anything in the nature of a combine is injuring our people we may be able to achieve more by the payment of a subsidy, and be in no doubt as to the extent to which we are committed.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 12. SO a.m. (Friday).

Friday, 11 November 1927

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Labour party regards this issue as of the first importance to the people of Australia. It stood solidly behind the Hughes Labour administration when the Line was established, and it has been proud of its achievements during the past ten years. In view of the immense value of the fleet to Australia, the Government is ill-advised in taking steps now to dispose of it. Its retention is necessary for the protection of the people of Australia.

Mr Forde:

– Especially the primary producers.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I go further than that. I say that the continued existence of the Line as a government activity is essential in the interests of the whole of the people.

Mr Killen:

– The primary producers do not want it.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The members of the Corner party speak so frequently about the interests of the primary producers that shortly they will believe that they themselves are primary producers. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) is not a primary producer - he gets other people to produce for him. The Commonwealth Shipping Board never had a fair chance. The Government handed over to it what was, for the greater part, an obsolete fleet, and expected the board to provide interest at the rate of 5 per cent, on the transfer value of 47. unsuitable ships, which could not, under any circumstances, earn voyage profits. In the circumstances the board cannot be held responsible for the unsatisfactory position that has arisen. It was handicapped with a large number of ‘unsuitable vessels; in addition, it had to meet heavy overhead charges and pay high salaries to its principal officers. The salary of the chairman of the board is higher than the remuneration of the Prime Minister, and the other members each receive £3,000 a year. The total salary bill is about’ £90,000 a year. Notwithstanding this handicap, the Line has rendered exceedingly useful service to the Commonwealth. It has carried 76,000 passengers to and from Australia and the

Mother Country, and it has advertised the Commonwealth in every port to which its ships have traded. This is an achievement of which we should be proud. I was much surprised when the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), yesterday read copies of certain cablegrams that had passed between the board and the London office.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– So were we surprised.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member, being a member of the Public Accounts Committee, should have had cognizance of those cablegrams, otherwise he should not have endorsed the recommendation of the committee.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The cables read by the right honorable member for North Sydney, and others which he did not read, came before the committee.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Had the committee any knowledge of the cablegram which the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) read to-night?

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I think not.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That communication was a most damning indictment of the Government, because the Prime Minister had assured us that no negotiations had taken place between the Ministry and the London office of the board about the sale of the Line.

Mr Maxwell:

– “Where did the honorable member for Batman get that cablegram ?

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is not for me to say. The Prime Minister has not denied its authenticity.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– How did the honorable member get a copy of that cablegram?

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I cannot say. All I know is that the Prime Minister, in reply to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) declared that no negotiations had passed, and that no offers’ for the Line had been received. The cablegram quoted by the honorable member for Batman stated that negotiations had passed between the Prime Minister’s department and the chairman of the board. That is a point which should be cleared up. If the Prime Minister deliberately attempted to misrepresent the position to the Leader of the Opposition, he should becalled to account.

Mr SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom). - Order! The honorable member must not suggest that the Prime Minister deliberately misrepresented the position.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Very well, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose I may think it. The cablegram showed clearly that negotiations had taken place and that the Prime Minister had endorsed a proposal to sell the fleet.

Mr Maxwell:

– What is the date of that communication ?

Mr Brennan:

– The 21st January, 1926.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It stated that the Prime Minister had advised the chairman of the board that he could go ahead with the negotiations to sell the Line and that Parliament would endorse his action. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) this evening went out of his way to emphasize that the demands of the Seamen’s Union for increased wages had seriously hampered the operations of the Line.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I pointed out that they were getting ?16 a month and were asking for an increase of approximately 30 per cent.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The object of the honorable member was to show that they were being paid higher wages than are given to seamen elsewhere. He must have been aware of the position of the Line nearly fifteen months ago, when the committee directed the attention of the Government to the high overhead charges, and suggested that a saving of ?10,000 could be made by a re-organization of the administration at the London end. He had nothing to say to-night about the generous salaries paid to the higher officials of the Line; he confined his attention to the wages paid to the seamen, implying that they were overpaid. No increases in the seamen’s wages have taken place since the honorable member for Gwydir signed the interim report recommending the retention of the Line. The Labour party stands for the retention of the fleet because it will help to keep down freights. Though the effective fleet unit is small, the presence of seven up-to-date steamers on the run must have some influence upon competitors. If the Commonwealth

Line is sold, have we any guarantee that other shipping lines trading to Australia will not increase their freights?

Mr Paterson:

– New Zealand freights are generally slightly lower than Australian freights.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Only for butter. We know that the London office of the Line despatched a cablegram to the Sydney office intimating that the Conference Line had asked its co-operation in increasing freights by 15 per cent. Had it not been for the, existence of the Australian Commonwealth Line, freights on that occasion would certainly have been increased.

Mr Maxwell:

– What was to prevent the Conference Line from increasing the freights if it wished to do so?

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– An increase of freights by the Combine would have played into the hands of the Shipping Board, because the consequent additional trade offering to the Commonwealth Line would, perhaps, have necessitated additions to the fleet. Ample tonnage, however, could be readily acquired by the chartering of suitable vessels to carry the increased cargoes on account of the lower rates charged by the Commonwealth Line. I agree with the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) that the Combine has driven many vessels from our coastal trade. I was a member of the Navigation Commission when it took evidence from Mr. Larkin and the managers of various shipping companies, and it was not long before we ascertained that the interstate shipping was in the hands of the British Combine. The Combine has so regulated its shipping itinerary that fewer ships are employed on our coastal trade than there were formerly. In addition, the Combine has large interests in the coal mines of this country. If Australia is to be a great nation, it must have a mercantile marine of its own. A Scotchman, an Irishman, and an Englishman were once speaking of their respective countries. The Irishman was loud in his praise of Ireland, and considered it to be the. gem of the earth. The Scotchman said that there was nothing so beautiful as the bonny hills of Scotland. When the Englishman said that he was quite satisfied with England, the Scotchman exclaimed, “What, man, have you no am- bition?”’ I ask this Government has it no ambition and no vision for Australia? How insignificant are the members of this Government compared with our great statesmen who have passed away. Compare them with men like Wentworth, Sir Henry Parkes and Dr. Lang, who defied the British Government by refusing to allow Australia to be flooded with criminals, and undesirable immigrants. Thousands of Chinese that were coming to this country were turned back. Those statesmen had faith in Australia and they wished to keep it for the white races. This Government is prepared to allow our mercantile marine to fall into the hands of a Combine which does not hesitate to man its vessels with black labour. One of the conditions of the sale of the Line is that it shall remain within the Empire. Supposing a company in which members of tlie Public Accounts Committee were shareholders, were formed to take over the Line, and it was forced into insolvency by the operations of the Combine, this Government would be helpless to prevent it from being purchased by a German or Japanese shipping company. The Australian Commonwealth Line was built up to carry our produce’ overseas and for our defence. We are told that its steamers can carry guns similar to those carried by our cruisers, and yet the Government measures its value to this country by its losses! We are spending millions on the defence of this country. The Government has placed on the estimates an additional sum of £200,000 for civil aviation. This Government is spending annually on the Air Force enormous sums of money, and like the expenditure on our Naval Forces, Ave do not expect a return from it.

Mr Thompson:

– It is not a trading concern.

Mr RILEY:

– The Australian Commonwealth Line was built up partly for defence purposes. We on this side of the House, have a national outlook, and consider that the retention of the Line will aid considerably in developing this country. Any great nation must have its own mercantile marine. Great Britain and the United States of America have their merchant fleets, and even small European nations have subsidized . their mercantile marine in order to trade with other parts of the world. The British Government is entering into a contract with the Orient Steamship Company for the carriage of mails to Australia, and one of the conditions is that the vessels must carry white crews. There is no such stipulation in the conditions under which the Government proposes to sell the Australian Commonwealth Line.

Mr Maxwell:

– The Government might consider that as a condition of sale.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the Line is sold, the Government should insist on the employment of white crews, and the payment of a living wage. In any case, I contend that conditions of sale may be easily evaded unless, of course, the Line is purchased oh time-payment, as was the Commonwealth Woollen Mills. There is every likelihood that freights will be increased.

Mr Paterson:

– How does the honorable member know that?

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Common sense tells me so. Had the Shipping Board agreed to the freights proposed by the Combine, the Line would have made a profit. One of the objects of the establishment of the Line was to assist the grower to market his products. We are expending millions of pounds every year in order to employ white labour in our sugar producing districts. We are paying l$d. per lb. more for Australian sugar than we would pay for foreign sugar if it were imported here. To keep Australia white we grant a bounty to our sugar-growers. If we are to follow the argument of honorable members opposite to its logical conclusion, we are as much entitled to remove the embargo on black-grown sugar as Ave are to go back on our policy of having a shipping line run by Australians and manned by white labour. We have heard a great deal about the Paterson butter scheme, which compels the consumer of butter in this country where it is produced to pay 3d. per lb. more for it than is paid by the consumers in Great Britain to whom it is sold. That apparent injustice to Australia consumers is permitted because the authors of the scheme believe that it is assisting and encouraging our own people to produce “butter ; and, similarly we have in four years paid over £2,000,000 in bounties to encourage the production of wine and other productions. Last year £442,410 was paid by the Commonwealth Government as a bounty on the production of wine for export. Why do we pay these amounts? Why do we not say to the man who is growing doradilla grapes for wine that we leave the difficulties of his industry to private enterprise, and refrain from assisting him? Why don’t we say to him, “ It is private enterprise that has made England great.”

Mr Hill:

– Hear ! Hear !

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad to hear that “ hear, hear,” from the Minister for Works and Railways, because the time is not far distant when he will be asking for another bounty on canned fruit.

Mr Hill:

– We pay a bounty on steel.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, because we believe that the people of Australia should be encouraged to manufacture steel. But when we ask that encouragement should be given to a shipping industry, which is in the hands of the Government, honorable members say, “Let us have private enterprise.” What would they say if we in turn said, “ Let us have private enterprise,” to some proposal for a bounty on primary produce? I should like the Government to produce the policy speech, and show ‘just where there is any indication of its intention to sell the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. It cannot do so. During the debate on the Housing Bill we were told that in his speech at Dandenong the Prime Minister set out what the Government proposed to do to build houses. It therefore has a mandate. But the Nationalist party has had no mandate from the country to get rid of the Commonwealth steamers. During the last election campaign there was no mention by the Government of its intention to sell these vessels. On the contrary, honorable members of the Country party lauded the Australian Commonwealth Line for the assistance it had rendered to the primary producers. They issued no manifesto declaring that they would support the Government in the sale of the Line.

Mr.killen. - We had previously stated our intention to do so.

Mr RILEY:

-Butnot in public. Did the honorable member tell the people of the Riverina that he was willing that the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers should be sold?

Mr Killen:

– I said it previously in the House, and the Hansard record of my speech was circulated throughout the Riverina electorate.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on the way in which he presented his case. He has done a service to the general public, hut I am sorry that he moved his motion, because the best way to damage the Nationalist party and the Country party is to allow them to do the work they are now doing. I understand that enough pressure has been brought to bear on the Government to induce them to reconsider their decision in this regard.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– Has the honorable member another cablegram to produce?

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– More cablegrams are coming to hand. I always thought that the Prime Minister was a straightforward and honorable man, but recent events, and particularly what has transpired during this debate shows that there is something wrong somewhere. If we knew the contents of the cablegrams that have passed between the manager of the Line and the Shipping Board in Sydney, we might understand the situation better. Before deciding to sell the vessels it was the honorable duty of the Prime Minister to let the House know the contents of those communications.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Will it not be necessary to pass a bill before the vessels can be sold?

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government can sell the vessels first and bring down an indemnifying bill afterwards. For many years past we have been building up an organization in every port where steamers of the Australian Commonwealth Line call regularly, and all that organization is to be handed over to a private company, not because the country has demanded it, but because the Prime Minister says that he does not believe in Government enterprise. Just when the Line is “ turning the corner “ ; just when all the old ships upon which interest and depreciation had to be paid have been sold, and the Line has got down to seven modern vessels; just when it is almost on the point of paying its way, or, at any rate, just before it can be given a real chance of paying its way, the fleet is to be sold.

Mr Manning:

– The honorable member forgets that the money received from the sale of the old ships has been used to enable the Line to carry on.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not forget that when those obsolete ships were handed over to the Shipping Board they were lying idle, and 5 per cent, on their cost had to be debited to the board. “When Mr. Larkin was in Great Britain nearly the whole of his time was occupied in trying to sell those vessels. It. was worth nearly a quarter of a million of pounds to get rid of them. But now that the Line has got rid of those vessels, and has at last been given a proper chance to show that it can become a paying concern on a proper working basis, the Government thinks the occasion a fitting one to sell the Line. I am afraid that it may be handed over to our former enemies. I suppose that it will be sold to the highest bidder, and the purchasers- may be Germans. Australian workmen who built the “ Dale “ vessels to help to protect the interests of this country may see them sold to the people with whom in recent years Ave have been at Avar. A great national asset has been handed over to an administration that has no vision. It secured election on the last occasion by camouflaging its policy with talk about the red flag and constitutional government. At the next election its opponents w111 have an excellent campaign cry. They will be able to point out that Ministers Avith no vision have concentrated all their energies on an attempt to break down a fabric built up by a previous Prime Minister who had some vision and had the courage to do something in the interests of his country.

This Government has not introduced one bill which can be said to have been drafted in the interests of the industries of this country. The honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) was well justified in saying, “ Oh, you despoilers, you wreckers.” I am satisfied that next time the people are appealed to they will wreck both the Nationalist and Country parties.

Mr MACKAY:
Lilley

.We have had an “interesting debate on the motion of the Leader of the Oppo sition. I believe that while honorable members opposite have been quite sincere in some of the views that they have put forward, they were not sincere when they said that they were pleading for the retention of this Shipping Line in the interests of the primary producers. The nationalization of industry is a plank in their platform upon which they depend to encourage the workers to support them at election time, and it is to win votes that this motion has been introduced. I have no doubt that the farmers will welcome the sudden interest which the members of the Parliamentary Labour party is showing in them; but they will understand that the Labour unions Will not be nearly so enthusiastic about them. Very few people will, in these days, criticize the wisdom of the Government which some years ago purchased these vessels and ran them to assist Australia in a time of national emergency; but many of us are firmly of the opinion that the Line should have been sold years ago when a profitable price could have been obtained for it. It cannot be denied that the operations of these ships have been very costly to the taxpayers for a number of years. If I could see any chance of the proposition becoming payable I would admit that there Avas some justification for the stand that honorable members opposite are taking; but the position is becoming worse every year. The chief argument upon which we are asked to retain the Line is that it is keeping freights down; but how can ships which are over-burdened Avith high running costs do so? . The fact is that while private shipping companies are making huge profits by charging freigh and fares similar to those of the Australian Commonwealth Line our ships are incurring heavy losses. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) and the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) were justified in saying that the Government-owned vessels have really stabilized freights for the Conference Line. It is ridiculous to suggest that our seven ships have any effect in reducing freight rates. The Leader of the Opposition stated that many millions of pounds had been saved to Australia because of the operations of this Line. It is a simple thing to make a statement of that kind, but a difficult thing to prove it My reply to it is that the figures given in the report of the Public Accounts Committee indicate quite definitely that the Line has cost the taxpayers more than £12,000,000. He would be an optimist indeed who would argue that it has either directly or indirectly saved the primary producers any considerable sum of money. The report definitely states that the benefits received are more than outweighed by the heavy losses sustained. I have always been opposed to government enterprises of this character, on the ground that no sense of responsibility appears ever to rest upon the management. But before going into that aspect of the case I should like to quote from a newspaper review of the book of Mr. Archibald Hurd, entitled State Socialism in Practice, which describes the experience in a number of countries in operating government-owned shipping lines. The article reads as follows : -

To Australian readers, in the light of the Commonwealth’s bitter experience of State shipping, the most interesting chapter in Mr. Hurd’s book is that which summarizes the results of shipping under the State in Canada, the United States, Portugal, France, Brazil, and other countries. In Canada the total deficit on the Canadian Government merchant marine rose from £4,110,000 in 1922 to £6,225,000 in 1923. In January of this year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) confessed that the capital expenditure of £14,000,000 on construction after the war was “as wilful a waste of public money as any Government was ever guilty of.” Prance has wound up her deplorable experiment in State shipping for a loss of more than £20,000,000. Brazil and Portugal are making desperate efforts to cut their losses. The United States has involved the nation in losses beside which those of other countries appear insignificant. Since 1916 the Treasury has spent £790,000,000 on the construction and operation of ships - a sum for which the United States could have bought all the ships in the world before the war, as well as a good many of those built since. The operating losses amount to £34,000,000. The total expenditure is thus £824,000,000, all of which has come out of the pockets of the taxpayer for no result whatever. Of the fleet of 1,300 ships 900 are idle, and the remainder arc running at a loss, the average loss on every voyage of each cargo vessel being £5,600. There appears to be no escape from this disastrous enterprise,, because an Act of Congress stipulates that the services must be maintained until the ships can be disposed of to private enterprise. In March of last year the Shipping Board put the entire fleet up to auction, .but there was not a solitary bid.

The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we could make our Line much less costly by cutting down some of the overhead expenses which are at present charged against it. On that point I quote the following paragraph which appears on page 17 of the report of the Public Accounts Committee : -

In its interim report on the Commonwealth Government shipping activities, presented to Parliament on 11th August, 1926, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts referred to the necessity for drastic curtailment of overhead expenses in connexion with the Line, but inquiry made since elicited the reply that, although some small savings had been effected, it had not been considered advisable to undertake any drastic alterations pending the presentation of the committee’s final report.

In another paragraph the report states that “ a saving of at least £10,000 could be effected in connexion with the London Office,” but it says nothing whatever about the possibility of making any savings in the offices in the various States of the Commonwealth. An annual overhead cost of £90.000 seems to me ridiculous.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The committee definitely recommended that the engagement of the present directors should be terminated simultaneously at the earliest possible moment.

Mr MACKAY:

– That may be so; but I do not think it will be denied that the present members of the board are thoroughly reliable and able men. Mr. Larkin has had a long experience in the shipping business, and I feel sure that quite a number of the private shipping companies would be glad to secure his services. I contend that the Government has given this Line every opportunity to make good. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) quoted extracts from various speeches reported in Hansard to the effect that the Minister for “Works and Railways (Mr. Hill) and other members of the Government considered that the proposal to hand over the management of the Line to a board was a good one, and I feel justified in saying that although the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) is not a supporter of government enterprises, he has given this one every opportunity to justify itself. But the time has arrived when the whole position must be reconsidered. It has been pointed out that 47 of the ships which were formerly included in our fleet have been sold, and the proceeds have been devoted to keeping the remaining seven vessels running. That kind of thing cannot be carried on indefinitely. In that connexion, the report states -

The total amount received by the board on account oi the sale of steamers to the 31st March, 1927, the estimated amount absorbed by the steamers sold and by steamers in commission may be summarized as under -

Selling prices of steamers disposed of after deducting instalments not paid, was £1,043,210.

Expenses in connexion with steamers sold or awaiting sale, £280,135.

Mr Fenton:

– Somebody got a good thing out of it.

Mr MACKAY:

– That is one of the troubles with government enterprises, This is not an isolated instance. I ask honorable members to note that 47 ships sold by the board realized only £1,043,210, and that one-fourth of that amount represented the expenses of the transaction. Honorable members have evidence before them every day in this city of the extravagance of government enterprises. If I could see any possibility of this Line becoming a profitable venture, I could understand honorable members opposite pleading for its continuance; but there appears to me te be absolutely no hope of obtaining any better results from it than we are at present getting. On this point the report of the committee states -

Reviewing the financial position generally, the board was of opinion that it might now reasonably expect to earn on voyage operations sufficient profit to cover administration expenses, with a small margin towards interest charges; but the greater part of interest and depreciation charges could not be met.

Mr Foster:

– “We should only lose more money by continuing the service.

Mr MACKAY:

– That is so. It is quite evident that if we intend to carry on the Line we shall shortly have to incur heavy expenditure for the replacements and necessary additions to make the fleet effective. In my opinion, that is an unthinkable proposition. The Line has already been sufficiently disastrous. To spend more money on it would be suicidal.

The honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) compared the merchant ships of our Line with our cruisers. The attitude of honorable members opposite has been contradictory in connexion with the building of new cruisers for Australia. Honorable members must recollect the time when Mr. Moses Gabb, member for Angas in the last Parliament, was the only member of the party opposite who supported the proposals of the Government in. regard to the building of cruisers, and he was carpeted by his party for doing so. The party opposite is also inconsistent in its attitude with regard to the nationalization of industries. The Commonwealth Government realizes that that policy is a failure. It has been tried in New Zealand, where great losses were sustained, also in New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland. Being more familiar with Queensland conditions, 1 shall quote a short statement made by the present Premier of Queensland, the Honorable Mr. W. McCormack. Queensland has experimented further with State enterprises than has any other State, and has accumulated very heavy losses from its ventures. It is comforting to know that a Labour Premier realizes the seriousness of the position, and is prepared to acknowledge the mistake of his party, in no indefinite terms. In the Queensland Parliament a few days ago Mr. McCormack said -

So far as the closing of Chillagoe is concerned, 1 do not believe that any economic problem should be carried on by the State. If the State can help an industry that has a chance of establishing itself to carry on with a small loss, then I say the State should help, even private enterprise if necessary, but to go on losing year after year huge sums of money that could be better expended elsewhere is impossible. This was the issue I had to face and I faced it in the only possible way by ordering a complete closure. Under no conditions shall I open up any of these propositions, unless there are reasonable chances of development, and finally, of the State not having to find huge sums of money for losses. In some instances it would be better to give each individual on the job a lump sum of money and get him out of the place, than continue a proposition which must eventual!’’ fail.” “ Mr. McCormack referred to the experiences at Cloncurry, and then asked if any one could argue it was wise for the State to bolster up uneconomic propositions which must eventually collapse.” “ At Mr Morgan, too, he claimed they were ill-advised in granting a subsidy. If that money had been spent on establishing a new industry that had a chance of succeeding, it would have been to the advantage of the State.” “I had a realization of my sense of duty,” he said. “ Since I have been Premier I have tackled problems which meant, to some extent, a renunciation of the policy of this Government, not because the policy was wrong, but because under State control we could not get the service we were entitled to. I only wish the issue had been faced before I had the responsibility placed on my shoulders. However, having taken the position willingly when the out-, look was rather black, it is my duty to see the tiling through, and try to do my best for the State.”

Honorable members will agree that that was a very courageous statement to make. For many years the State enterprises of Queensland have proved colossal failures.

Mr Forde:

– Are they not, with the exception of State stations, paying their way to-day?

Mr MACKAY:

– For the information of the honorable member, I shall quote the losses made by them. The Prime Minister, when replying to the Leader of the Opposition, completely justified the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and in doing so mentioned the sale of the Queensland State cattle stations. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) ridiculed the allusion to those cattle stations, saying that the transaction was ancient history. No doubt honorable members opposite would welcome a complete silence in regard to those enterprises. The Queensland Government is still working some of its State stations, so that the question is not so out of date as the honorable member for Yarra suggests. In his report of 30th June, 1926, the Queensland Commissioner of State Trading says -

Under the Government’s meat supply the primary object in the acquisition of the State stations was, as originally enunciated, to supply as many as possible, per medium of the State butcher shops, with beef from cattle raised on its own holdings.

Although State stations cattle have been and are ‘still being supplied to State butchers shops, it lias been found that the satisfactory functioning of the original scheme cannot be economically carried out, and the only way in which the cattle can be profitably disposed of is by selling them in large numbers to meatworks and by private sales.

For some time past the disposing of its State station interests has been seriously contemplated by the Government, and it is now decided to realize on the whole of the cattle stations when the opportunity offers and prices are satisfactory.

The Queensland Government is carrying out its intention to dispose of its stations, but their value has depreciated so extra ordinarily that that job is a difficult one. The figures in my possession show that the State stations of Queensland lost fl,116,4S0, and that is only one of a number of losses. The State cannery, which showed a profit of £127 last year, had £89,999 written off.

Mr Fenton:

– Was that not of benefit to the producers?

Mr MACKAY:

– Indirectly, but not directly. There are sufficient private canneries to deal with the fruit crop.

Mr Fenton:

– Did the State cannery not benefit the returned soldiers on the Beerburrum settlement?

Mr MACKAY:

– Certainly the State canneries paid those settlers 3s. 6d. a case of eighteen pineapples the year before last, which was of benefit to them, but private canneries also offered the same price. To-day Beerburrum is practically a deserted settlement, notwithstanding the fact that the canneries gave prices higher than the actual market value of the fruit. It was the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) who was responsible for saving the position when in London by making a good sale of the canned pines. The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) asked whether some of the Queensland State industries did not pay. The railway refreshment room certainly did, but they have no competiton and pay no licence fees on. the sale of spirituous liquors.

Mr Forde:

– They are well conducted.

Mr MACKAY:

– Yes, but private refreshment rooms are equally well conducted. The honorable member will recollect that Mrs. Ball conducted the railway refreshment stations in a remarkably efficient manner, when they were under private enterprise. The Babinda State Hotel, which has a monopoly and pays no licence fees or interest on capital, also shows a profit. The State butcher shops show an alleged profit of £29,139, but critics of the commissioner’s report point out that when the Queensland State Government entered the meat trade during the war it commandeered meat in a wholesale manner for the meat works, at 3ld. per lb., which resulted in a gain of £40,000, which was credited to the State butcher shops. That helped to cover some of the losses.

Mr Forde:

– They gave the people meat at very reasonable prices.

Mr MACKAY:

– Only a proportion of the people. To-day there are eight fewer State butcher shops than there were “two years ago, which indicates that the industry is on the down grade. Forty-two State butcher shops scattered throughout Queensland cannot be of great benefit to the people. The Queensland Government introduced State trawlers. Each catch by the trawler cost £2,200, and it sometimes realized £136. The sum of £44,079 had to be written off that venture. Since the Queensland Government has had control of the fish industry that commodity has been scarcer and dearer than ever previously. In my electorate the inhabitants of a coastal town cannot buy the fish that is caught there, because it has to be sent to the fish market in the city miles away. On the Chillagoe smelters, there has been a lo3s of £1,090,649. The loss that has been transferred to the loan fund necessitates an interest payment of £56,112, which is equal to £1,080 a week. A sum of £49,108 was expended on a proposal to establish steel works at Bowen. Those works did not materialize, and that expenditure was a dead loss. Other losses have been -

I quote those unpalatable facts more in sorrow than in anger. I regret that Queensland, which is one of the most promising States in the Commonwealth, should have suffered under the blighting influence of Labour control during all these years. The Premier of Queensland now realizes that his Government has been following a mistaken policy ; but his realization has come too late for the unfortunate taxpayer. As an illustration of the methods that are adopted in Government enterprises I shall relate what happened in connexion with a five-ton motor lorry that was purchased by the Chillagoe smelters in 1915, for the sum of £1,315. A certain individual took possession of the lorry with the intention of purchasing it, and his account was debited with the cost. He worked it until 1926, when he returned it, and his account was credited with the original purchase cost. Later, the lorry was rented to him and he paid £126 10s. for its use.

In the meantime the smelters had expended £268 12s. 4d. on tyres and spare parts. They again took possession on the 25th March of this year, when the chief engineer valued it at £400. The loss to the smelters on the transaction was £1,057 10s. 9d. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition has been used by him, and his supporters as a medium for propaganda. In view of the lessons to be learned from Queensland and other States, and especially the losses that have occurred in connexion with shipping enterprises in various countries, one must come to the conclusion that the Government is acting wisely in proposing to sell the Commonwealth Line of ships. Losses such as those which have been made by the Line and by the different State enterprises in Queensland, are responsible for a great deal of the unemployment that exists throughout the Commonwealth. The following statement is indicative of the appalling state of affairs that exists in Queensland and is materially attributable to the losses that have occurred in State enterprises;

The number of unemployed in the State at the present time is between 48,000 and 50,000.

Mr West:

– By advertising Queensland in that way the honorable member is doing it an injury.

Mr MACKAY:

– I have quoted those figures not to advertise Queensland, but to show where the policy of honorable members opposite will lead the people of the Commonwealth. I support the Government in this commendable decision to sell the remaining ships of the Commonwealth Line. They should continue on an Empire register, if possible; but I would not place in the conditions of sale any restrictions that might lead to a lower purchase price being received. We should endeavour to get as high as a price as possible. The sooner we get out of the business, the better.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) deserves the congratulation of all honorable members for the very fine speech that he delivered in moving this motion. Never was such a motion more justified. I believe that if this had not been made a party question by the Government a majority of honorable, members would have voted for the motion.

Dr Nott:

– Who made it a party question?

Mr FORDE:

– The Government. For the first time in the history of the Government a combined meeting of both parties was held. The whips were cracked, and honorable members opposite were told that if they did not come to heel they would be dealt with by their respective organizations. I am opposed to the sale of the Commonwealth Line, chiefly for the reason that it has very effectively prevented the Conference Line from increasing freights, and in several instances has secured a reduction of freights. It has placed the Australian primary producer in a more favorable position than the primary producer in New Zealand, that has not a Government-owned line of steamers. In view of the great distance at which Australia is removed from the markets of the world, it is imperative for us to have a Government-owned mercantile marine for the protection of the primary producers of this country. The government of a country is the only authority that can effectively fight a combine such as that which is controlled by Lord Inchcape. Unfortunately, this question has not been dealt with on its merits. Honorable members opposite have allowed party politics to intrude, and to dictate the attitude they should adopt. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) was amusing when he said that the Committee of Public Accounts had weighed the evidence, and considered this question as a jury would have done. When he was chided for having given a certain opinion twelve months ago, and retracted from it, he said that that was only a temporary opinion. Do juries give temporary verdicts? This indicates that certain members of the committee, representing the Government supporters, had received instructions as to the nature of the report to be presented.

Mr Hill:

– ‘.Che honorable member must not judge members of other parties by the standard of his own.

Mr FORDE:

– The record of the honorable the Minister is not a very meritorious one. On a former occasion he spoke in favour of the retention of the Line and quoted the platform of the Country party as his authority. He now approves of the sale of the fleet. I should like to know what other members of the Country party have to say about that, or what his constituents will .have to say when next lie appears before them. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) and the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) both claim to be representatives of the primary producers. I suggest that this debate presents to them a good opportunity to follow the example of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) and the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), and declare themselves definitely in favour of the retention of the Line. In view of the attitude of certain members of the so-called Country party, it is not to be wondered at that some of the daily newspapers are viewing it with disfavour. The Sydney Sun recently declared that the attitude of some of its members in regard to the Commonwealth Line was inimical to the interests of country constituencies. It is apparent that the party have been swallowed up by the Nationalists, or, as the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) put it, they are “ in the bag” of “ big business.” The interests of primary producers and “big business” are diametrically opposed to each other, because invariably big business exploits the primary producer. As a result of their association with the Nationalist party, certain members of the Country party have fallen down on their job. They have betrayed the trust that was reposed in them at the last election. Apparently they have forgotten the pledges which they then made to the electors. They appear also to forget’ that in former years they denounced all trusts and combines. The Minister for Markets and Migration (Mr. Paterson) secured his seat in this Parliament by defeating one of the finest Nationalists and one of the best citizens of Australia, in the person of Mr. G. H. Wise. He persuaded the people of Gippsland that they could not trust Mr. Wise because, so he said, that gentleman was “ in the bag “ of the Combine and was really the representative of middlemen.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir littleton Groom:

– I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Mr FORDE:

– I say, unhesitatingly, that the Minister secured his seat in this Parliament on the strength of the Country party’s platform, and that he defeated one of the most scrupulously honest Nationalists that ever held a seat in this House. I add to that the statement that the Minister has gone back on the platform of his party because now he sits cheek by jowl with Nationalists in a composite Cabinet, and has betrayed genuine Country party representatives like the honorable member for Wimmera. Prior to the formation of the coalition Cabinet, Country party representatives declared that they would not be found dead in a 40-acre paddock with Nationalists. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. G. Francis) has had a good deal to say during this debate. Being a political accident, he should wait until he has secured endorsement at the hands of the people in his division.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I never bought a scat, at all events.

Mr FORDE:

– If, by that interjection, the honorable member suggests that I bought a seat in Parliament, he is quite wrong. I won my seat in both the State and Federal Parliaments honestly and fairly. Unlike him I did not enter Parliament by merely stepping into a dead man’s shoes. The honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill) is smiling. Apparently he is not troubled with a political conscience. I wonder if he remembers a speech which he delivered on the 10th July, 1923. On that occasion he said -

The platform of the Country party declares in favour of the extension of the Commonwealth Shipping Line by the inclusion of large and fast steamers with plentiful insulated space for the purpose of carrying perish able products to the markets of the world at reasonable rates. The main reason why we have supported this Line is that we believe that, in days gone by, we have been exploited and probably will be exploited again by the Shipping Combine.

The honorable member is now a Minister. He obtained his seat in this Parliament by his support of the Country party’s platform, a prominent plank of which was the extension of the Australian Government Shipping Line for the purpose of carrying primary products to the other side of the world at the lowest possible rates. Apparently he has gone back on that principle, and has betrayed his trust. When the Labour party, not so long ago, took action in this House to ensure direct representation for primary producers on the Commonwealth Shipping Board, members of the” so-called Country party joined forces with the Nationalists and defeated it. If the primary producers had secured representation on the board then the Line would have been much more useful than it has been. Is it any wonder that the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) got absolutely tired of the insincerity of these socalled farmers’ representatives, and on a matter of principle sacrificed cabinet rank and all that it might have meant to him? He declared, when he left the Cabinet that, unlike the honorable members for Echuca, Gippsland, and Corangamite, he was’ not going to throw his lot in with “ big business.” Today many members of that party are in the bag according to the honorable member for Wimmera, who spoke with inside knowledge. Recently a genuine Country party was formed in Victoria, and it proposes to run a candidate against the honorable member for Echuca at the next election. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Marks) said to-day that ha intended to vote for the sale of the Line. It is interesting to recall what he said on this subject on the 6th July, 1923. The following is an extract from his speech in this House -

Notwithstanding the losses that have been made, I think that in a great democratic country like Australia, the Government should have within its control the means of transport, especially shipping. A few days ago a deputation waited on the Minister for Trade and Customs with a request for refrigerated freights, and these are absolutely necessary for our trade in the Bast. There is a crying need for faster ships to enable merchants to carry their goods to that part of the world, and the time has certainly, arrived when the Government must either build vessels or use one of those already in existence with large refrigerated space.

A few years ago the honorable member for Wentworth and many others who intend now to support the Government’s proposal, expressed the view that the retention ofthe Line was absolutely essential for the protection of Australia. The percentage of cargo carried by it does not count. What is important is its influence upon the freights charged by the Combine. We know what we may expect as soon as the fleet is- sold. Lord Inchcape made this clear to Mr. Larkin, the Chairman -of the board, some time ago when he declared that if it were a private concern the Conference Lines would not” have taken so much notice of it, but since it was a Government activity, they were forced to take, steps to combat it. He realized that, with the backing of the Australian Commonwealth, the Line presented, a difficult proposition. The cablegrams quoted by the honorable member for North Sydney yesterday clearly indicated that the Inchcape group was prepared to buy the Line, or if that were not possible, to sell their ships engaged in Australian trade to the Commonwealth. It matters not what safeguards the Government might provide, if the Australian Commonwealth Line were sold, it would soon be in the grip of the Combine, and would have no influence whatever in keeping down freights. Hitherto the Line has been able to discipline other lines to a great extent. It was instrumental in getting the British Government to cause an inquiry to be made by the Imperial Shipping Committee into the rebate system, and the result was that the system was abolished. Other lines were compelled to provide a better class of vessel. The Orient Line, for instance, had adopted oil fuel, following its example. Honorable members supporting the Government contend that the primary producers of Australia have received little or no benefit . from reductions in freights. They are absolutely wrong.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have never said such a thing.

Mr.FORDE. - The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) and other hon orable members made that statement. The wool-growers, the butter-producers, the apple-growers, and other sections of primary producers have all received benefits from reductions in freight. The wool buyers for Bradford know that any reduction in freights is reflected in the prices they pay for wool. It is amazing to hear honorable members supporting the Government contend that the Australian Commonwealth Line has not brought about reductions in freight. Had they listened to the effective speeches made by honorable members on this side of the House, and refused to accept the misleading statements of the Treasurer, they would put their country before party politics, and vote for the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The Treasurer quoted certain figures which he evidently obtained from The Shipping World Y ear-Book. For coal freights outwards, Wales to Lisbon, he quoted 17s. 6d. a ton in December, 1920, and 8s. 4½d. a ton in December, 1925, and gave the difference as the decrease in overseas freight. Had he quoted the freights in 1922 instead of in 1920, there would have been a decrease of only 4½d. In quoting overseas freights, the Treasurer compared 1920 with 1925, and in quoting Australian freights he compared 1922 with 1925. In that way he made it appear that the decrease in overseas freights was considerably more than that in Australian freights. He misrepresented the whole position, and, therefore, was absolutely unfair to honorable members. The following cable was received by the Commonwealth Shipping Board on the 23rd October, 1926-

Secret and confidential. - In view of the coal position, Conference propose immediate advance freights, approximately 15 per cent. Foreigners agree. It is proposed to exclude items such as rough weights. British owners ask your earnest consideration and agreement.

Yet the Treasurer has informed us that we can rely upon foreign ship-owners to keep freights down. That cablegram shows that the foreign lines will work in with the Inchcape Combine. The board on the 26th October, 1926, cabled that it regretted that it could not agree to advance freights by 15 per cent. That, of course, did not please the foreign ship-owners or the Inchcape Combine, and they have since been out to kill the Austraiian Commonwealth Line, and with the aid of this sympathetic Government their goal is in sight. As the honorable member for Wimmera has said, this Government stands for big business, and not foi* the primary producers. Iri July, 1926, the Prime Minister, when defending the Line, submitted to this House the following statement setting out the estimated annual saving to the primary producers of Australia through the operations of the Line : -

The right honorable gentleman further said -

In addition, freight concessions equalling about £33,000 a year have already been obtained by the Dried Fruits Export Control Board and the Australian Fruit Canners’ Association.

The Prime Minister, now that he wishes to sell the Line, will say that the primary producers have received no benefit from freight reductions. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) has shown that the primary producers are being saved £1,000,000 a year because of the influence of the Australian Commonwealth Line in keeping down freights. New Zealand freights have been quoted, but we find that the primary producers of that country pay more on refrigerated cargo than the Australian producers. On New Zealand freights, the Australian primary producer would pay for refrigerated space an additional £239,000 per annum. For beef alone the additional cost would be £108,838. Primary produce or beef, mutton, rabbits, eggs, &c, have been greatly assisted by the decreased freights brought about by the influence of the Line. A decrease of even 10s. a ton in freights is of considerable benefit to struggling primary producers. The total over” seas shipping from Australian ports for 1925-26 amounted to 5,169,000 tons. An increase in freight of 10s. a ton would mean the payment of an additional £2,500,000 in freight by the Australian primary producers. It would also affect the importing interests. Take the tonnage from overseas. In the year 1925*26 Our imported tonnage Was ,5,342,621 tons. An increase of 10s. a ton in freight by the Shipping Combine would cost importers an extra £2,671,000, which, of course, they would have to pass on to the public.

Mr Hill:

– The great bulk of our overseas tonnage has been wheat, on which the honorable member cannot say that a single penny piece was saved to the shippers by the Australian Commonwealth Line.

Mr FORDE:

– Prior to the formation of the Australian Commonwealth Line, private shippers of wheat were quoted a price of £10 per ton. When the Australian Commonwealth Line fixed the rate at £7 10s. a ton the private shippers were forced to come down to that figure. In the year 1924-25 Australia exported 65,304 tons of butter. If the Australian Commonwealth Line is sold and the freight On butter is increased by 10s. a ton, the butter producers of Australia will be compelled to pay in freight an extra £32,652 a year. That may not sound a huge amount, but this extra impost will render it still harder for thousands of dairymen who are not making the basic wage to continue to exist. Owing to over-production the sugar cane growers of Queensland will have to export approximately 150,000 tons of sugar this year. If the freight on sugar is increased by 10s. a ton it will mean a loss Of £75,000 to our sugar canegrowers. In 1924-25 Australia exported 126,620 tons of beef. Queensland produces 8,000,000 of the 16,000.000 head of cattle reared in Australia annually. If shipping freights Were increased by 10s. a ton, it is mostly men in the northern State who are struggling to make ends meet who would have to pay an additional charge of, approximately, £63,000 a year, which they can ill afford to pay. The meat industry of Australia is languishing and deserves every encouragement. Already it is difficult to make it a profitable business, because of the high transport charges and the lack of refrigerated space on vessels trading on our coast. The Honorable William Angliss, M.L.C., of Victoria, who is a big meat exporter, is of the opinion that the Australian Commonwealth Line has been of wonderful assistance to his firm in handling meat. He points out the great difficulty there is in getting meat from Queensland to the southern States and Western Australia. The only Line that will carry frozen meat to Western Australia is the Commonwealth Line, unless shippers go to the prohibitive expense of consigning on interstate vessels to Sydney or Melbourne and then transhipping to Western Australia. If the vessels of the Australian Commonwealth Line are taken off the trade, it will impose great hardship on the shippers of meat from Queensland to Western Australia’. The Line has been of considerable assistance to the meat producers of Queensland. There should be no difficulty in getting it to shift cargoes of chilled and frozen meat to the southern States. But the facilities it offers are not sufficient. Greater facilities should be afforded by it for the removal of cargoes of meat from Queensland to the other States. Quite a number of Nationalists who do not believe in State enterprise are in favour of having a mercantile marine for Australia, and consider that that great public utility, the Australian Commonwealth Line, should be further developed to keep down freights. Mr. Angliss is a Nationalist, yet he is of opinion that the Line has been responsible for keeping down freights. It should not be necessary to say anything further to convince honorable members that the Line has been responsible for a reduction in freights on meat and other commodities, but it is just as well to show what reductions have been made. In March, 1921, the freight on skins was reduced from l£d. to lid. per lb., and in 1920, the freight on wool was reduced from 2$d. to 17/8d. per lb. These reductions were brought about by the Australian Commonwealth Line. The reduction on wool meant a saving of £35,000 a year to the wool growers. It may not seem much to some people, but it meant a great deal to the unfortunate people of Western Queens- land who have suffered the ravages of drought during the last twelve months. As we export 7,500,000 sheepskins each year, the reduction of fd. per lb. meant a saving of approximately £120,000 in freight. Can honorable members in the face of the facts say that the Line has not been responsible for a reduction in freights? The reduction of 10s. per ton for which Mr. Larkin, Chairman of the Commonwealth Snipping Board, was responsible meant a saving of over £2,000,000. to Australia in the year 1923. In January of that year the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Line reduced the freight on rabbits, beef, mutton and lamb by 1/8d. per lb., and within a fortnight the other shipping lines made the same reduction. When the reduction was made on wool and sheep skins the other shipping lines were also forced to bring down their freights on those commodities. Instead of having these vessels of the Australian Commonwealth Line withdrawn from the Australian trade, we should be taking steps to have more refrigerated space provided on our coast services. The Wyreema has recently been sold, and the Cooma has been lost. The only refrigerated tonnage now available is provided by the Bombala and the Canberra. One of my complaints about the Australian Commonwealth Line is that in the past it has not played a more prominent part in the carriage of interstate cargo. It has unfortunately been restricted in that regard. An Eastern merchant to whom I was talking in Melbourne recently, and who knows a great deal about the trade done by Commonwealth vessels between Australia and the East, said that the reductions were not made by shipping companies from choice, but because the Commonwealth Line led the way. He went on to say -

The management of other companies could easily foresee that if they did not make a reduction, they would get very little freight in certain commodities next season.

I wish honorable members opposite could be convinced that it is in their interests and in the interests of Australia to vote for this motion of want of confidence, because the carrying of it would mean a change of Government. The speeches delivered by the honorable members for Richmond,

Wimmera, and North Sydney, indicate that all is not well, and that such a change is badly needed. The Prime Minister and certain of his followers seem to have an obsession in regard to private enterprise. They seem to think that it must always be a success, and that State enterprise must always prove a failure. The path to the bankruptcy court is beaten hard- by the footsteps, of thousands of people whose private enterprises have failed. The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay) had a good deal to say about unsuccessful government enterprises, but he did not refer to the other side of the picture. He did not mention the Commonwealth Bank, nor the State Insurance business in Queensland, which is making a profit of £60,000 per annum ; nor the Public Curator’s Department in Queensland, which is also a notable success. State enterprises, like private enterprises, must inevitably fail when they are badly managed. Seeing that the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, like our government-owned railway systems, has justified its existence, because it has safeguarded the interests of the primary producer, it should be continued. We should be guilty of a serious error if we were to hand over our primary producers to the rapacity of the Inchcape Combine. The United States of America and Canada consider that they are justified in continuing their governmentowned shipping enterprises, and seeing that the Prime Minister himself has admitted that our Line has saved as much as £500,000 a year for our primary producers - the right honorable member for North Sydney gave the figure as £1,000,000 - we also should be amply justified in continuing it.

Mr COOK:
Indi

.- On account of the importance of the subject which is being discussed I think it is desirable that every honorable member should briefly state his position. When this shipping venture was inaugurated I looked upon it as a huge co-operative undertaking and being a whole-hearted cooperator, I supported it in the hope that it would prove a great success. But the reasons which led me to recommend it to my constituents, nine years ago, are a hundred times outweighed by those which now cause me to condemn it. Honorable members opposite have, during this de bate, shown an unusual interest in and sympathy with the struggling farmers and primary producers generally. I have no doubt that they would do all they could to assist primary production if their bosses were willing; but unfortunately that is not the case. The Labour unions and the various organizations of extremists which control the Parliamentary Labour party are concerned only with their own welfare. At one time, when I was a good deal more innocent than I am to-day, I thought that the conveyance of our products from our ports to the markets of the world by government-owned steamers was just as desirable as the conveyance of them from our farms to the sea board by government-owned railways. The platform of the Country party which deals with this matter, reads -

Transport.

  1. Revision of the Coastal clauses of the Navigation Act to give better facilities to the travelling public and the commercial interests of Australia.
  2. Encouraging the establishment of regular, direct shipping services with adequate refrigerated space at competitive rates to potential markets.

But I have now come to the conclusion that the cumbersome and costly Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers does not give effect to any of these ideals. I entirely differ from views of the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) in regard to government and private enterprises. I have had a good deal to do with co-operative concerns. I remember that the Civil Service Stores which were established in Melbourne a few year ago were operated successfuly for a while but the time came when their prices were higher than those which obtained elsewhere, and as always happens the world over, the people transferred their custom to the commercial houses which charged the lowest prices. The result was that this great co-operative concern went into liquidation. It may be said that the manager did not know his business, but I am informed on what I consider to be reliable authority, that he is now a wealthy man. The Labour unions will not allow our great public enterprises to be operated on economical lines. To support my contention, let me illustrate what has happened recently in connexion with the Victorian Railways. We have a Labour Government in office in that State.

Although the railway system, at the time the Government assumed office, was paying from 4 per cent, to 4i per cent, interest on the capital invested - which was more than any other State railway system was paying - the Government requested the Chief Commissioner to retrench to the fullest possible extent in every direction. The Commissioner promptly advised that 500 employees should be dismissed. Unfortunately the Premier was not as strong as the trade unions, for they made certain representations to him, with the result that not a single dismissal has taken place”. The financial position of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers is altogether unsatisfactory. According to figures which are reported in Vol. CIII. of Hansard, at page 646, the gross loss on the Line for the year ended 30th June 1922, was £1,171,000; and the estimated gross loss for the year ended 30th June, 1923, was £1,626,150, the total for the two years being £2,797,150. The gross capital cost of the fleet was given at £14.3.56,938, while the market value was estimated at £4,718,150. If I conducted my farm as that line has been conducted I should soon be without a home.. The trade unions and the speeches made by honorable members opposite would be of little assistance. If we continue much longer at the present rate the whole of this £14,000,000 will disappear. The following are extracts from the report of the Auditor General dated the 31st. March, 1927 :-

We appear to’ be going backwards very rapidly. The following are statistics with regard to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited and the United States Shipping Board -

Both of those countries are faced with difficulties similar to those now confronting Australia. If I thought that our Line had a chance to assist Australia, I should be one of the last to support the suggestion for its disposal. I realize the menace of shipping combines, and I also realize that the trade unions of Australia represent one of the most destructive elements which our shipping industry has to face. No one objects to high wages if an adequate day’s work is given in return. If I pay a man £2 a day, and his efforts return to me £2 0s. Id., I am progressing. If I pay him 2s. 6d. a day, and his efforts return to me 2s. 5d., I am retrogressing. I favour a system of payment by results where is is possible. Australia has a splendid lot of seamen, but they lack the proper type of leader. Their disgruntled leaders causes all the trouble. I shall quote a few extracts to indicate the manner in which the Seamen’s Union has “ assisted “ the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. The Sydney Morning Herald of the 19th March, 1924, stated : -

It is reported that the assistant secretary of the Seamen’s Union (Mr. Johannsen stated at the shipping master’s office that he was there to prevent the Line from selecting the men required, and he challenged the right of the owners to pick their own men. That afternoon the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board felt impelled to make the followi ng statement : - “ The Seamen’s Union demands the right of selection of a crew for the Fordsdale, and the men selected from the members of the union by the board’s officers are being prevented from signing articles. The Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board is unable to delegate the selection of a crew for such a valuable property as the Fordsdale to irresponsible union officials. The Fordsdale .will be removed to Cockatoo Island, and will remain there until the men the board considers suitable offer themselves for engagement.”

On the 5th November, 1924, the daily press stated that the Commonwealth Line had come into conflict with the Seamen’s Union and the Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Union, as a result of which both the Ferndale and the Moreton Bay would be delayed and might be tied up indefinitely. The trouble had arisen through the refusal of the stewards on the Moreton Bay to watch over mental cases on the way to England on the steamer’s last voyage. It was found that a number of the members of the union did not concur with the action taken by the union officials, and had accepted em ployment, so that a sufficient number had Been signed on to enable the Ferndale to make the voyage to the United Kingdom. The Ferndale should then have got away, but during the morning the wharf labourers refused to continue loading. At 1 p.m. a gang of unionists came to the conclusion that the stoppage was absurd, and they commenced to load the refrigerated cargo. The Ferndale was able to be despatched the following day.

I could quote another page and a half of incidents similar to those, in which the union deliberately held up our ships. It is true that we have had a slight relief during the last two years, but honorable members opposite know that there is a reason for that relief. There is now on our statue-book an act which will” tend to prevent a recurrence of such drastic interference with our industry. I know that it would be a relief to some honorable members opposite to get rid of these agitators, and, if a National Government undertook the task, it would, be all the better to their liking. The report of the committee dealing with the running costs of the steamers of our Line, says: -

Figures placed before the committee showed that under Australian conditions of manning and pay in force last year, a “Bay “ steamer had to carry a complement of 170 - at a cost, including overtime and leave, of £3,725 per month, whilst a vessel of similar class on the British register would have a crew of 154 only, at a total monthly cost of £I,G54. A comparison of the actual wages, &c, paid for the year ended 31st Mardi, 1926, on the Ave “ Bay “ steamers and the estimated wages payable for similar steamers on English articles, showed a difference in favour of the latter of £117,758, the figures being: - Actual wages paid under Australian articles, £204,987; estimated wages paid under English articles, £87,229.

When the extra victualling cost is considered, this amount is increased by £9,510, making a total of £127,268, or nearly equivalent to interest at 5 per cent, on the transfer value of the “ Bay “ steamers.

It is estimated that the additional cost of running the seven steamers now in commission as compared with a similar number and class of vessels on British articles would approximate £220,000 per annum; if, therefore, the Commonwealth Line had operated with British rates of wages and conditions, its anticipated loss of £189,905 for the year 1926-27 would have been converted into a profit of £30,000.

Taking Australian wages and conditions as £100, the committee was informed that in respect of a vessel of 6,000 tons gross, British wages would be £32.41, American £42.21, Swedish £24.51 and Danish £15.44, but, since those figures were prepared Australian rates have been increased by 5s. per month per rating.

The minority report, which was signed by members of the Labour party, continues -

The present steamers (five “Bays” and two “ Bales “ ) cannot be expected to maintain the existing service without serious risk of breakdown and consequent dislocation. To permit of the laying up and overhaul of ships, and, perhaps, the extension of services, new tonnage will be necessary. Owing, however, to recent development in methods of propulsion and the doubts that at present exist as to the most economical method to be employed, it is considered inadvisable that new tonnage should be ordered until such time as the superiority of the Diesel or other engines has been demonstrated

That indicates that there must be a substantial increase in the number pf vessels comprising the fleet. I shall not be a party to my electors having additional taxation imposed upon them tor the maintenance of a service that is losing millions of pounds. My honorable friends opposite have a wonderful sympathy with the primary producers. They argue that members of the Country party misrepresent the position when they say that their electors have to bear the brunt of the loss. The statistics for last year show that 97½ per cent, of the primary products that were sent across the seas went to pay interest and sinking fund payments on our debts. Therefore, the primary producers must pay the biggest proportion of the loss that is made by this Line. The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) is a very fluent speaker, who is usually at his ease; but this morning he was disjointed, and appeared not to know what to do. His speech consisted as much of guess work as of reality. He was considerably astray with the figures that he quoted regarding freights. The report of the Royal Commission on the Navigation Act contained the following table of freight rates during 1921, 1922, and part of 1923 : -

Freights to United Kingdom from -

That table shows a continuous drop in freights to the United Kingdom, where there is not a State-owned line of steamers. The report further contains the following table showing the increases in freights on general cargo on the Australian coast from 1913 to 1922: -

It will be seen that the freights charged by our State-owned line have been continually and rapidly increasing.

Mr Yates:

– Those figures relate to interstate freight rates, which are charged by private companies.

Mr COOK:

– They apply also to our Commonwealth Line which proves it to have had no effect in keeping freights down. I am quite prepared to accept the decision of the farmers on these facts. A great deal has been said regarding the prosperity of the American Lines. The following is a clipping from the Argus of 26th October last: -

page 1272

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SHIPS

Failure in United States of America.

Thirty-six Vessels may be sold.

Washington, 24th Oct. 1927

The Shipping Board has appointed a special committee to draw up new specifications for the sale of three lines of ships, namely, the American, Australia, and Orient, the American, Oriental and Oregon, and the Oriental, comprising altogether 30 vessels. The committee has been instructed to report promptly to the board.

It is understood that a majority of members of the board favour the disposal of the lines. The board asked the committee to consider the proposal of Pacific Coast operators for an operation guarantee for five years. This was opposed by some members, who favoured a guarantee of ten years.

When the committee has submitted its report the board will also consider the proposed sale of two Atlantic Coast lines, namely, the American and West African and the America and France.

A Nationalist Government in Tasmania established a State line of steamers some time ago, but it was sold by a subsequent Labour Government. I have heard no protests from the members of the Opposition against that course. If only we had a few men of the stamp of the T asm an ian Premier, Mr. Lyons, in the ranks of the Opposition, we should have st. considerable measure of support for the proposals of the Government. The honorable member for Cook made light of the losses incurred by the Line, and went on to compare its position with that of certain primary industries. He referred particularly to the bounty of £442,410 paid on the production of wine in 1936-27, and he left the matter there. There is no. lie so dangerous as a half-truth. If the honorable member had been fair he would have told the whole story. He knew, of course, that if he had put the position in its true light, the analogy would not have served his purpose. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to overtake the honorable member’s statements, which, I presume, will be published in the press tt.’-morrow. He suggested that the wine growers were robbing the community to the extent of the bounty paid. Actually the position is that for the years 1924-25, 1925-26, and 1926-27, the total bounty paid amounted to £687,936. Over the same period the excise duty collected totalled £1,197,000 on a basis of 5s. per gallon of proof spirit as compared with 6d. prior to the war. These figures, which the honorable member for Cook might have given, show that the wine growers are not getting away with the “ boodle “ as he suggested, as the whole of it, with a substantial amount in addition, for fortifying spirt has gone into the Treasury. The honorable member for Cook also referred te the position of the post offices, and the heavy subsidies paid for mail carriage. I remind him that hi the year 1925-26 that public utility returned a profit of £136,323, and in 1926-27 a profit of £362,000. If the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Line could have shown figures comparable with those, we should not be considering the disposal of the Line to-day. The Prime Minister the other day assured the House that in the negotiations for the sale of the Line the Government would insist on the vessels being retained on an Empire register, that there would be guaranteed a certain amount of refrigerated space, and that the same number of ships at least would be employed in the Australian trade. He stated, further, that in view of the probable increase in tonnage there would be no likelihood of an increase in freights and fares. I have a copy of the agreement of 1921 made between the Postmaster-General and the Orient Steam Navigation Co. for the , conveyance of mails between Great Britain and Australia. Certain clauses of the contract will, I am sure, be of interest to honorable members, so I propose to quote them. Clause S reads - (1.) The contractors shall during the continuance of this agreement provide upon each mail shi]) used for the purposes of this agreement an amount of insulated space for the carriage of perishable produce.

In the mail steamers Ormonde, Orsova, Orvieto and Osterley or any approved mail ships substituted for them, the amount of insulated space to be provided shall be not less than us follows: - Ormonde. 2.000 tons, 40 cubic feet, Orsova, 2,000 tons, Orvieto, 2,000 tons, Osterley 2,000 tons. (2.) The contractors shall, unless otherwise determined by the Postmaster-General, provide a chamber in each mail ship for butter, if 300 tons of 20 cwt. are offered for shipment at the ports of loading in the Commonwealth collectively, and no fruit, cheese, or other odorous articles shall be carried in the same chamber as the butter.

There is provision in a clause of the contract for the carriage of our perishable products. Clause 4 reads-: -

The contractors shall not, without the written approval of the Postmaster-General, charge, demand or receive, foi’ the carriage of butter or fruit upon a mail ship any higher rates of freight than the current ruling rates of freight charged or received (after deduction of all rebates allowed or allowable) for the carriage of butter or fruit on other Lines of steamships regularly engaged in the trade between ports of call in the Commonwealth and the port or ports of discharge of the mail ship: Provided, however, that in respect of butter the tare of boxes shall not exceed 12 lb. per box, and the tare of casks shall not exceed Iti lb. per cask, and that any additional tare above such rates shall be paid for at the same rate of freight as butter.

In Clause 24 there is this provision : -

If the contractors shall perform and /observe all the services and conditions of this agreement there shall be payable as and from the date of the commencement of the mail services to be performed under this agreement to the contractors (out of such aids or supplies as may from time to time be appropriated by Parliament for that purpose) a yearly subsidy or sum at the rate of £130,000 per annum.

I mention these conditions in the contract lest honorable members opposite have forgotten them, if, indeed, they have ever, heard of them, and also to show that it is possible, to make binding contracts with reputable firms. This policy is much to be preferred to the retention of a Line that has proved such a costly venture to the Commonwealth. The suggestion has been made that, possibly, at the termination of this agreement, it might be practicable to transfer the mail contract to a fleet of vessels controlled by private organizations throughout Australia, backed by the Government and the primary producers. I am sure that the numerous organizations would, if requested, do all in their power to ensure the success of that scheme. Possibly a conference could be convened to go into details. Already we have in existence a butter control board, a rural credits branch of the Commonwealth Bank, which has been a god-send to the primary producers this year; a dried fruits control board, and a similar organization for the handling of our wheat. All these organizations could render valuable assistance. I realize’ fully the seriousness of the position of the Line, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Government’s policy. The Prime Minister has indicated that the interests of our primary producers will be amply safeguarded. If the organizations in the various States can come together, and if they are supported by State governments, there will be no difficulty in making satisfactory arrangements for the handling of the whole of our exportable surplus products.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– I resent the action of the Government in forcing an all-night sitting upon honorable members. During a period of thirteen months this Parliament sat for three weeks only, and now the Government has decided to limit the discussion on a motion that vitally affects the future welfare of Australia. Honorable members supporting the Government have little regard for the primary producers when they advocate the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line. They measure its value, not by the benefits that it confers, but by its losses. I thought that when this Parliament assembled at the Federal Capital, honorable members opposite would take a broad Australian view, but, during this debate they have done nothing but pitch a tale of gloom, sorrow and sadness. The speeches of the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) and the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) were very disappointing. The honorable member for Forrest, as usual, spoke of the poor unfortunate wheat and wool-growers. The substance of the speech of the honorable member for Gwydir was that the Seamen’s Union had applied to the Arbitration Court for improved conditions and higher wages, and he deplored the fact that they ask for a wage of £16 . a month. Most of the seamen employed by the Australian Commonwealth Line have wives and children and are away from home for months at a time. They should certainly be in a position to provide assistance for their, wives and to properly educate their children. To try to inculcate into honorable members behind the Government the socialistic ‘ principles of State enterprise is like placing a mustard plaster on a wooden leg in order to cure a cold. Our educational system is a State enterprise and we have gone to great expense to perfect it. When I was at school the head boy used to receive 5s. a week to teach the class. Those of my generation had little education; but most honorable members opposite have enjoyed the advantage of a socialistic system of education. Primary and technical schools, universities and agricultural colleges are all supported by the State. In New South Wales, education is free from the primary school to the university. That State is the most progressive in the Commonwealth. Its leaders have made errors because they are visionaries, but what they have done has been for the good of humanity and for the future welfare of Australia. Among our State enterprises are institutions such as the public schools, technical schools, universities, railways, post offices, forestry schools, bankruptcy courts, the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, the Commonwealth Bank, the savings bank, the Naval Department, the Defence Department, the railways, the Harbours and Rivers Department, gaols, and the “Water and Sewerage Department. Much has been made of the loss on the operations of the Australian Commonwealth Line, but is there not a loss at the experimental stage of any public or private enterprise? When it was decided that Sydney should have a new water supply, and alternative sites for a large storage dam were selected at Prospect and Kenny’s Hill, I favoured the Kenny’s Hill scheme because it ensured a high pressure of water which could be utilized for motive power and other purposes. The departmental engineers submitted to Parliament an estimate of £750,000 for this work. My estimate for the work, including excavations and pipe’ lines, was £3,250,000. Sir Henry Parkes was then the Premier of New South Wales, and I submitted my estimate to him. He informed me that the departmental estimate was £750,000 and that he would have to accept that, otherwise the narrow-minded members of the Country party would not agree to the scheme. It is essential that

Ave should retain the Australian Commonwealth Line to ensure communication with other parts of the world and to build up our export trade. Viscount Inchcape and others connected with the British Combine are large land owners in the Argentine, and once the Australian Commonwealth Line is under its control the products of the Argentine ,vill bc placed on the markets of the world while the Australian producers will be left lamenting. I have studied that phase of the question. I have a friend in London who has given me considerable information, but he would talk about nothing but butter, because he and his friends were making :a fortune out of Australian butter through the operation of the Paterson scheme, which increases the price of butter in Australia by 3d. per lb. It has been a source of wonder to me that the people of Tasmania have not seen the folly of not retaining complete control of the transport of their produce from the island to the mainland. At a meeting held in Hobart last July, at which every society and State institution on the island Avas represented, a resolution was carried to the effect that the only solution of the problems of Tasmania Avas -.to have better means of communication

Avith the mainland through a government- controlled shipping service. I shall be glad when I am able to book my passage to Hobart on a government steamer conducted on the lines of “ safety first. “ I think the people of Hobart are on right lines in trying to do something to develop the island’s production and keep its population employed. I note Avith regret the fact that the population of Tasmania is decreasing. At one time half the boys employed in the Government Printing Office in Sydney were Tasmanians. I cannot understand why the people of Australia will not have government control of transport, not only for safety’s sake, but also for the more effective carriage of their produce. 1 have on the notice-paper a motion dealing with the establishment of a Research Institute. In pursuance of the object 1 have in view I have addressed communications to many medical men, and one medical man of exceedingly high attainments - he has the highest degrees that can be obtained in his profession - replying to me, has asked me to exercise whatever power I possess on behalf of men engaged in shipping and mining, because, as he says, “ the employers in those industries deserve to have their heads beaten Avith the battle-axe.” I can understand why this gentleman has written in that strain. I cannot mention the names publicly, but I can assure honorable members that the most unreasonable employers the unions have to deal Avith are those connected Avith shipping and mining. They are the greatest tyrants we: have on the face of the earth. They are tyrannical to those who are unfortunate enough to seek employment from them. Surely honorable members opposite do not realize that the world has moved forward since the Avar. Every country is trying to improve conditions; in the matter of transport on the ocean as wel as on the land. The descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers are the cream of the American people to-day. The Americans see to it that nothing is carried along their coast except in American bottoms. According to the Cape Times, South Africa has adopted the same policy. Canada will not allow private shipping lines to hold its people at their mercy. Speaking of the attitude of ship-owners, I remember many years ago the formation of the first Seamen’s Union in Sydney. I was appointed treasurer of the union. The seamen had been denied by the Australasian Steam Navigation Company the right possessed by every other citizen to suspend work while in port from 1 o’clock on Saturday to Monday morning. The consequence was a strike. Honorable members opposite have made frequent references to what they term trouble with the seamen on vessels of the Australian Commonwealth Line. I remember when we woke up one morning in Sydney to find that a ship had arrived in the harbour with 500 Chinese on board. The arrival of that vessel caused such a stir that the people generally rendered every assistance to the Seamen’s Union. We went down to the waterside armed with pieces of 4-inch x 2-inch timber to exercise a certain amount of moral suasion. By the next day the vessel had cleared for Guam, and we heard nothing more of her. That was the result of the grand work done by Sir Henry Parkes in telling Downing-street that a selfgoverning people would not accept dictation as to our White Australia policy. When I heard Mr. Amery speaking the other night I thought of the dangerous ground we were treading. Mr. Amery is a great advocate of private enterprise. He told us what a grand thing it would be to take the raw materials from Australia to Great Britain, and bring back the manufactured goods for our people to use. He put his case very nicely. He is a polished speaker. He is one of the best types of parliamentary) representatives I have ever heard. He would not leave a stone unturned. Nothing would escape his interest. I have been thinking it would be a pleasure to sit in opposition to men of his type, who would be inculcated with the idea of Australia first and always. If we retain the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers we shall be carrying out some of Mr. Amery’s ideas. All the other British Dominions seem to imbued with the idea that their salvation lies in retaining control of transport. Here we have our government railways, but in its early stages every railway built in Australia has been run at a loss. New South Wales has thirteen lines of railway which are operating at a total loss of more than £2,000,000 per annum. These lines are serving the primary producers. I do not regret that they have been built, but if we are justified in continuing to operate railways at a loss we are equally justified in continuing to carry on our shipping enterprise even though a loss is incurred thereby. It is essential to the success of our primary producers that they shall have reasonable facilities for getting their produce to the overseas markets. I consider that we are justified in retaining this Line because of its value as an arm of our defence system. It is comparatively - easy to train boys to become soldiers, but to train them to become sailors is an altogether different proposition. Seeing that this is an island continent with a coastline of more than 11,000 miles, we should do what we can to improve our defensive naval equipment, and we can do something practical in that direction by providing employment on vessels of the Australian Commonwealth Line for time-expired naval men. I regret that honorable members opposite do not appear to see the wisdom of this ; but Parliament has sat for such a brief period in the last thirteen months that they do not seem able to settle their minds to the problems which confront them. One of the reasons why this Line has not been a payable proposition is that it is over-staffed on the official side. The chairman of the board of directors and his two co-directors between them draw nearly £10,000 annually in salaries. I am given to understand that included in the offiicial staff of the Line are seven captains, seventeen managers who control the captains, nine staff offiicers and various other subordinates. That number is altogether too large for a fleet which consists of five passenger vessels and two freighters. The Australian workmen have proved their ability to build ships, for it has been recognized by the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers in Great Britain and by the members of other engineering unions there that the Fordsdale and the Ferndale are two of the best boats of their class that have entered the Thames. We should be building more vessels of the same type, for we have the necessary equipment at Cockatoo Island Dockyard. Even if it cost as much as 15 per cent, more to build the vessels in Australia than to purchase them overseas we should be justified in doing the work here, for ‘it would ensure that in a time of emergency we should have available, not only a first class dockyard in working order but also a staff of skilled tradesmen. The governments of the United States of America and Canada have ho intention of disposing of their shipping lines. They are looking to them to provide employment for the young men of their country. We should be doing the same thing. Our young men cannot all enter professions. It is well known that the ranks of the medical and legal professions are over-crowded. Sir Mungo MacCallum has made that clear on many occasions. In a letter which I received recently from the Chief Justice of New South Wales, Hon. Phillip Street, he said that if we do not take care we shall find trouble in providing suitable outlets for the energies of the intelligent young men of this country. ‘ It is naturally expected that university students will give some return for the training which they have received. How are they to repay their parents for that education if we withdraw every opportunity from them? There are many brilliant young folk in Australia who are capable of making their mark anywhere in the world, and we are forcing them to go abroad by cramping their opportunities. I know the son of a senator who was receiving £5 a week in Sydney, and who went to America to better himself. On arriving there he was given £9 a, week, and he is now receiving £16 a week. I know of another young man who left England and is now employed by the Westinghouse Brake Company at £3,000 a year. We must endeavour to control our destinies, and the extension of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers will assist us to do so. The people of Australia would have greater confidence when exporting their produce if they knew that the ships carrying their goods was controlled by Australians. Honorable members opposite would like to see our seamen revert to the dreadful conditions that existed a number of years ago. Recently, I returned to Australia by the Niagara and could not help contrasting the magnificent luxury with which the first-class passengers were surrounded, with the miserable accommodation alloted to the seamen and stokers. Such an extreme contrast cannot continue indefinitely. If we control a Line of steamships Ave must endeavour to provide better conditions for our seamen. Let us encourage those men and their wives to live in Australia, and so improve the economic position of this country. Recently, Ave were visited by Mr. L. M. S. Amery, the Secretary .of State of Dominion Affairs, and, although I knew that that gentleman was here in the interests of Great Britain and not of Australia, I could not help admiring him for the zeal which he displayed in his . endeavour to serve his country. If only honorable members opposite were actuated by the noble ideas that influenced Mr. Amery, Australia would be a wonderful place in which to live. I have witnessed the evolution of social conditions in the British Empire, and I realize that the bad old times cannot return. We must endeavour to conduct our industries efficiently, so that they will support the White Australia policy. We cannot allow our ships to be manned by coloured labour. Unfortunately, this government is unduly influenced by the sordid desire to conserve wealth. Greed destroys all that is best in human nature, and I urge honorable members opposite to turn aside from their pursuit of the almighty dollar and to cultivate a broad national outlook. If they became inspired by the noble desire to sen-e Australia, it would not be too late, even at this eleventh hour, for Ministers to reconsider their decision and set about the establishment of an adequate mercantile marine. That would be an asset of inestimable value to Australia, whether regarded from the point of view of defence, as a means of employing and training our people, or of creating and perpetuating a greater national pride. If the Government fails in its duty, it will be ours to make a stir in the com”munity. Once the people have been roused, retributive action will quickly follow. Only a few days ago I received a communication in which the following appears : - lt lias its root in the recognition of Australia’s isolation from white nations; that she is, so to speak, the outpost of white civilization, that her proximity to the overcrowded millions of the East confronts her with a predicament extremely serious.

That is a very significant statement which ought to be taken to heart by the Government. I represent one of the most important constituencies in Australia. It has within its boundaries a large number of men who obtain their living from the sea. They would naturally expect me to express my views on this matter. I believe that I have spoken in accord with their sentiments. It is quite evident that the shipowners are amassing great wealth. They are not actuated by humanitarian ideals. That is a characteristic of the majority of employers. A man will work 48 hours a week whilst he is building up a business, but once he has made a success of it, he reduces his efforts to the minimum, and loses sight of the fact that his employees have claims upon his consideration. During the whole of my life I have expended my energies in advancing the interests of the working class. If every honorable member would act similarly we could make this a Parliament -of which the whole nation would be proud. Canberra is destined to be the home of the brightest brains in the Commonwealth. Therefore the work which we do should be of a brainy character.

Mr SEABROOK:
Franklin

– I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion. It can truly be said that my actions and expressions in relation to the Commonwealth Line have never lacked consistency. I wish first to congratulate the Public Accounts Committee on the report which it has presented to this Parliament. It has evidently taken a very keen interest in this matter. Forty-six witnesses were examined, and they comprised the men who are best able to say whether the continuance of the Line would promote the best interests of Australia. I also congratulate the Government upon its decision to sell the Line. One of the most telling speeches to which we have listened was that delivered by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). He claimed that the Line had been of great benefit to the people of Australia. I do not think that any person will question the accuracy of that statement in its relation to the early days of the war. The Line then was( a great convenience, because it was the medium by which our primary products were consigned to England. The right honorable member for North Sydney stated that in the earlier period of operations the ships earned profits to the amount of £7,000,000. Those profits were made because the management charged the people the highest freights possible. In other words, the profits were made out of the people who owned the vessels. I understand, also, that the right honorable member said f further that . £3,000,000 of the profits had been paid into the Treasury. What became of the other £4,000,000? In 1923 the Government had to- write off £8,000,000. A grave mistake was made in the building contracts, the “D” and “E” class steamers, all of which were built in Australia, they being too small and too slow for the trade. Their indicated speed was 9^ knots, but in anything like a seaway, they could not average more than 5 or 6 knots an hour. The management admitted that they are unsuitable for the work. The recommendation of the committee that an endeavour should be made to form a co-operative company for the purpose of taking over the fleet, does not appeal to me. I do not forget how the trades hall authorities and the unions treated the Line. The unions did all in their power to ruin the fleet. Experience has proved that it is impossible to conduct the Line successfully under Australian conditions. The adoption of the committee’s recommendation to sell the Line will provide a splendid opportunity for honorable members opposite who are so keen about retaining the Line and also for trades hall officials and members of unions to invest money in a scheme to take over the vessels. They now have their chance to show the world that they can make a success of the shipping business. Hitherto the waterside workers and seamen, backed up by trades hall authorities and the Walshes and the Johannsens have done all in their power to wreck the Line. The time has come for this state of affairs to end. There has been too much job control and too much interference with the Australian shipping industry. There is no justification for the statement of the Leader of Opposition that freights and fares will be increased immediately the fleet is disposed of. The private companies that’ are operating in Australian waters have been here for the last 36 years, and freights were lower prior to the establishment of the Australian Commonwealth Line. From 1910 to 1914 the freight on fruit from Australia was 2s. 7d.. a case. During the war and after the Line had been established, it rose to 8s. a case. It is impossible under Australian conditions for the Line to compete against outside shipping companies and show a profit. The provisions of the Navigation Act have driven overseas competitors out of that trade.- The position was admirably hit off in a recent issue of the Melbourne Herald which published a cartoon depicting a scene on one of the Bay liners. One seaman was shown holding a dead goose by the neck and another seaman had a dagger in his hand. Beneath the cartoon was printed : - “ Well, Bill, talking nautically, I reckon we’ve about done him in “. That exactly is what has happened. The seamen, by their excessive demands on the Line, have destroyed it - they have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. The capital value written off the ships has been lost entirely, and the book value of the remaining vessels of the fleet - the “ Bay “ liners and the “ Dales “ - was set down about five years ago, at £3,400,000. Since then the ships have been running day and night to a regular schedule of sailings. It has not been possible to lay them up periodically for overhaul and repairs, so they must have depreciated very considerably in value. I should not be surprised if their estimated value to-day is not more than £2,000,000. We shall be in a better position to say when the tender prices are disclosed. The Prime Minister has intimated that one of the conditions of sale will be that the ships must remain on a British registry. I am prepared to accept that because it will be in the best interests of Australia. The Government will be well advised to get rid of the steamers without undue delay, otherwise they may be a complete loss. The accounts of the Line show that, since the Board assumed control, the loss incurred through the running of the “ Bay “ and “ Dale “ ships has been nearly £2,000,000. Would any sane business man advocate the retention of the fleet in those circumstances? ‘ Some honorable members hold the view that the presence of the ships on the run has kept down freights. I do not share that opinion. I believe that, on the contrary, they have been responsible for rates being maintained at a high level. The fact that the ships carry only 7 per cent. <pf the overseas cargo proves that they have not influenced freight rates one way or the other to any extent. The Navigation Act prohibits overseas passenger ships from carrying passengers between Australian ports. These vessels travel from England to Australia and return and yet on this coast they are not permitted to earn a single shilling.” Before the war they carried interstate passengers, and fares and freights were lower than they are now. If those facilities were again given us, in all probability the same freights and fares would be charged. The right honorable member for North Sydney read certain cablegrams to the House, and I believe that he obtained them from one of two sources, either from a member of the Public Accounts Committee or from the Sydney office of the Australian Commonwealth Line. As those cables were strictly confidential the right honorable member has betrayed a trust. . It was an unworthy action on his part and one to which an honorable member should not have descended. In 1918 the right honorable member commandeered vessels in which space for Tasmanian fruit had been allotted. We did not object to that because the vessels were required for taking food-stuffs to Great Britain. But he promised the growers of Tasmania that they would receive 2s. 6d. a bushel for the apples that were to have been shipped by those boats. The boats were commandeered, and 500,000 cases of apples rotted, but the grower never received one penny for them. This is another illustration of the right honorable member s doubtful tactics. I have little time for an honorable member who will stoop to that sort of thing. He certainly did not act fairly towards the fruit growers of Tasmania. Reference has been made to the losses on the Australian Commonwealth Line. I have frequently seen in Hobart a Commonwealth liner on one side of the wharf and an Orient vessel on the other. The Orient vessel leaves regularly at 4 p.m. on Saturdays. The waterside workers know that, and they load the fruit;but they adopt a different attitude towards the Commonwealth liner. It has heen stated that these men do not want overtime. Let me say that the Commonwealth vessel is frequently hung up until 6 a.m. on Sunday so that the men may receive double pay for loading. That has been, one of the causes of the loss on the Line. The waterside workers of Tasmania have recently thrown 150 of tbeir fellow unionists out of work because half a dozen of them wanted to unload a small quantity of coal from a river steamer. The waterside workers rather than help their fellow men would let them starve. The Katoomba is now hung up at Fremantle. We are experiencing nothing but strikes and job control throughout Australia. The sooner the Government disposes of the Australian Commonwealth Line the better it will be for this country. It has been stated that the Line has been responsible for reductions in freights, but I am not so sure about that because I happen to know that prior to the reduction in freight of 6d. a case, the manager of the Australian Commonwealth Line was called to the office of the Conference Line and told of the proposed reduction. Before the information was made public by the Conference Line, he despatched a cable and obtained thecredit for lowering the freight. I have with me an extract from the Melbourne Herald in which Mr. G. E. Moate, President of the Marine Stewards’ Union, says: -

In 1915 there were sixteen passenger ships trading between Western Australia and Queensland, carrying crews totalling 1,500 To-day there are only eight vessels with crews totalling690.

He further says that many men are unemployed. The Australian Commonwealth Line employs 520 seamen who are domiciled in the United Kingdom, and those men are receiving Australian wages and conditions. There . is no reason why they should not be replaced by Australian seamen. I do not think that our seamen want work, especially when the unions allow foreigners to hold positions which could be filled by good Australians.

Mr Yates:

– Does the honorable member call British seamen foreigners?

Mr SEABROOK:

– I am referring, to Swedes. Norwegians, Dutchmen, and other foreigners that are employed by the Line. When giving evidence before the Public Accounts Committee I submitted to it a list supplied to me by Mr. Davis, the director of navigation, which sets out the various nationalities employed by the Line. There are many foreigners in -the list, and they are receiving the best conditions and wages given to seamen anywhere in the world. One would naturally think that they would endeavour to make a success of the Line, but to their own detriment they have continually hampered its operations. I am pleased that the Government has decided to accept the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. The following paragraph appeared in the Melbourne Herald of the 25th October: -

page 1280

QUESTION

SEAMEN FLOUT OWNERS

Issue Ultimatum

Threaten Strike if Wages are Out.

At a mass meeting of the Melbourne branch of the Seamen’s Union to-day it was decided not to confer further with the shipowners unless they withdraw their proposals for a reduction of wages, and that if the shipowners attempt to put into operation any plans for “worsening of conditions,” seamen throughout Australia would cease work.

Mass meetings are being held in other capital cities. The shipowners have already intimated that they will only confer with the seamen on the basis of the owners’ demands and the old agreement. A grave position is threatened on the water front.

Mr. T. Walsh’s Challenge

A stir was caused at the meeting by the reading of a minority report signed by the general president (Mr. T. Walsh) and Messrs. A. Woodsford (S.A.) and T. Houghton (W.A.), members of the committee of management.

In it these three members threw down the gauntlet to the general secretary of the union (Mr. J. Johnson), thus reviving an age-old feud within the union ranks.

They charged Mr. Johnson and his followers, who are in the majority on the committee of management, with having endeavored to conceal vital matters from members.

The union is threatening a general strike if any alteration is made in the conditions of the seamen. The union has been deregistered by the Arbitration Court, and the conditions and rates of pay of the seamen are now fixed by agreement with the shipowners. It is open to them to refuse work; but if they do they deserve all they get, even starvation. I have.- no patience with men who. to gratify a mere whim, suspend a vital transport service to the detriment of Australian industries. We must place our export products on the markets of the world if this country is to progress. In 1925 the honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill) now Minister for Works and Railways, stated that out of 57 vessels that were engaged to carry wheat to Great Britain only four were Commonwealth vessels, mainly because the latter were charging 5s. a ton more than the other lines. Yet honorable members glibly say that the Australian Commonwealth Line has influenced reductions in freight.

Last night the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) said that 57 per cent, of the fresh fruit exported from Victoria was carried by vessels of the Australian Commonwealth Line. He “wanted the honorable member for Franklin to know it.” The honorable member for Franklin knew more about it than the honorable member did. I asked the honorable member to give me the quantity and not the percentage, but it did not suit him to do so. As a matter of fact, less than £ per cent, of the fruit exported from Victoria was in these ships. It is true, as the honorable member for Maribyrnong said, that the steamers of the Australian Commonwealth Line took away 57 per cent, of the Victorian fruit exported, but that 57 per cent, represented only 5,000 cases, whereas, Australia’s total export for the same period was 2,500,000 bushels. If the whole of the Victorian fruit .had been carried by vessls of this Line, it would have represented only a small proportion of the quantity of fruit carried away from Australia. Tasmania ships more fruit than all the other States put together, and the vessels of the Australian Commonwealth Line do not take away more than 10 per cent, of the Tas-, manian fruit. Tasmanian exporters would not worry if they did not cater for the Tasmanian fruit trade. They call at Tasmanian ports only when they can get apples, which is the best carrying cargo, and these they carry for 70s. a ton or 40 cubic feet of space that is fully occupied by 19 cases. On one occasion a vessel of the Australian Commonwealth Line was only half filled when it was leaving Tasmania. One agent who had some timber to ship to Western Australia, with which State Hobart had no direct communication, asked the Hobart agent for the Australian Commonwealth Line for a quotation for the delivery of the timber at Fremantle. When the agent informed the head office of the Line at Sydney that he had quoted a price for the conveyance of the timber to Fremantle, the Sydney office telegraphed back, “You cannot accept the freight.” I took the matter up and communicated with a Minister, who referred it to the Shipping Board. The reply I received was that if the Australian Commonwealth Line took the timber its itinerary would be upset, as its vessels had to run to a time-table. As a matter of fact, the time-tables of vessels of this Line are fixed by the waterside workers and the seamen. The vessels are often hung up in Hobart longer than they should be. It should not upset the itinerary of any vessel to load that quantity of timber. The manager of the Line, when afterwards he came to Tasmania, said to me, “ W e do not want interstate trade.” The ships of the Line could not run between Tasmania and Fremantle, but they could be employed in carrying beef from Queensland to Sydney and Melbourne. The price quoted for the conveyance of timber from Hobart to Fremantle was 14s. per 100 feet. The Australian Commonwealth Line, which would not take timber from Hobart to Fremantle, asked if the Hobart firm would send timber to England, and actually the price quoted for taking the timber from Hobart to England was Ils. per 100 ft., 3s. less than was quoted for taking it to Fremantle. It would not be out of place for me to repeat what I have said on a previous occasion with - regard to the effect on freights of the increased wages and better conditions awarded by the Arbitration Court. The freight .on a bale of hops from Hobart to Melbourne is 13s. 2d., from Hobart to Fremantle 37s. 5d., and from Hobart to Liverpool 18s. 8d. It costs twice as much to send a bale of hops from Hobart to Fremantle as it does from Hobart to Liverpool. The freight on canned fruits and jams from Hobart to Brisbane direct is 43s. a ton, and, via Sydney, when transhipment takes place, 50s. a ton. The freight to Gladstone, a coastal town of Queensland, is 78s. a ton, to Rockhampton 66s. a ton, to Mackay 7Ss. a ton, to Townsville 7ls. a ton, to Cairns 81s. a ton, to Port Douglas 99s. 8d. a ton, to Innisfail 102s. a ton, and to Mourilyan Harbour 104s. 2d. a ton. It costs more to send produce from Hobart to Mourilyan Harbour or Port Douglas than it costs to send it to England and bring it back again. Honorable members opposite know that, with the high rates of wages the seamen are paid on the vessels belonging to the Australian Commonwealth Line, it is impossible for these vessels to compete with those of the other countries, which do not employ seamen under similar conditions. Australian seamen enjoy’ the best conditions and are paid the highest wages in the world, and yet they are not satisfied. When our vessels come into competition with those of outsiders, it is an absolute, impossibility for them to compete with them. We have been told that the cost of running our ships is £100 as compared with £30 in Great Britain, £42 in America, £25 in some other countries, and- £15 in Denmark. It must be borne in mind that the £100 in A.ustralia makes no allowance for overtime. Our seamen work eight hours a day. On the ships of other countries the seamen work ten hours a day. Our seamen are paid 2s. an hour, and with overtime a man will sometimes draw about £25 a month. Furthermore, they get their keep, free towels and free soap. The bulk of them are single men and they live on their ships. They are unskilled yet they earn more than a skilled mechanic on land who has to keep a wife and family. Is it right that an unskilled labourer should earn as much money as a skilled mechanic? Let us take the waterside workers. In one case which came under my notice, it cost from 4¼d. to 53/8d. a case to load apples from the wharf at Hobart to the ship lying alongside. As I once said on another occasion, the waterside workers are. the laziest humbugs in existence. When I made this statement previously the honorable member for Tarra (Mr. Scullin), brought it under the notice of the House, but I had proof from the stevedores to show that my figures were correct. Honorable members opposite know that a small fleet of steamers cannot do all the work required for the transport overseas of the produce of Australia. If the Australian Commonwealth Line is to continue, we must have other ships, but if there was any proposal to add to the fleet, the first thing honorable members opposite would say would be “build the steamers in Australia”. If we started to build them in Australia, they would never . be finished. We started to build a cruiser here, but before it was finished the war was over. That is the way things go on, and that is the reason why the new cruisers are being built in England. I am like the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Cook). When I pay out £1 in wages I want 25s. worth of work. The men engaged on the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers are not earning their wages. The same may be said of the workers in many other industries. It is for this reason that our primary producers art compiled to ask for bounties on their products. I trust that these vessels will be sold, and that very shortly the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act will be repealed. I should also like to see our Arbitration Courts abolished, for they have given the trade unions the power to dictate the wages that shall be paid and the working conditions which shall be observed in Australia. Some extraordinary things have happened to passengers who have voyaged to Australia on the Australian Commonwealth Liners. A friend of mine told me that on one occasion he called a steward to do something for him and the steward did not move. He called again, and the steward came up to him and said “ Do not call me ‘steward,’ I am a part owner of this bloody ship.”

Mr SEABROOK:

– During 1925.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Why did not the honorable member give the Public Accounts Committee an opportunity to investigate the case?

Mr SEABROOK:

– I did not like to use such language before it. That case indicates the kind of thing that occurs on these ships. Tasmania has not had a fair deal from the Commonwealth Government ships. For a long time we were obliged to pay a surcharge of £1 per ton on all the cargo that was lifted from our coast. I suppose that we paid thousands of pounds away before the surcharge was lifted. The manager of the Line visited Tasmania and wanted the Tasmanian merchants to guarantee him 200 tons of cargo per trip. “What right had he to make a demand like that?

Mr.Watkins. - lt was necessary to have a guarantee.

Mr SEABROOK:

– Tasmania assisted to- provide the money to establish this Line, and she has had tobear her proportion of the operating losses that have been incurred, yet in 1918 when shipping was very scarce, these vessels did not carry Tasmanian cargo. In 1919 four trips were made to that State, and the figures for the succeeding three years were as follows: - 1920, 2 trips ; 1921, 5 trips, three of which were made in one month; and 1922, 2 trips, with an eight months’ interval between them. Is that fair treatment ? If we had been guaranteed a regular service the whole of our cargo would have been given to the Commonwealth ships, but no guarantee was given to us, and our trade went to the Dominion Line. A good deal has been said during this debate about the black labour ships which visit Australia. The fact is that the only Line trading to our coast which employs black labour is the P. and 0., and it has been serving us well and faithfully for the last 56 years. I should like to make a brief reference to the latest log of wages and conditions of employment that theWaterside Workers’ Federation of Australia has served on the employers. It contains the following provision : -

SMOKE-OHS.

Subject to any agreement that may be made between the Federation and the respondents, or any of the respondents, as to any particular port, the employee shall be entitled to break of work for smoke-oh without any loss of pay at the following hours: - 10 to 10.30 a.m. and 3 to 3.30 p.m.; 9 to 9.30 p.m. unless the man’s work end for the night at or before 9 p.m.; 3 to 3.30 a.m. unless the man’s work end for the night at or before 3 a.m.

Do honorable members think that it is a fair thing that these men should be paid for one hour every day during which they do nothing but sit down and smoke? The new wages claim provides that between 6 p.m. and midnight from Monday to Friday inclusive, time and a half shall be paid per hour. This claim would mean an increase in the existing rate of pay from 3s. 9d. to 4s. 5d. per hour. Another claim is that between midnight and 8 a.m., from Monday to Saturday inclusive, double time shall be paid. This would involve an increase in the existing rate from 4s. 6d. to 5s.11d. per hour. Another provision is that between 8 a.m. and noon on Saturdays time and a half per hour shall be paid. This would increase the existing rate from 2s.11d. to 4s. 5d. per hour. From Saturday noon to midnight, and between Sunday midnight and S a.m. on Monday, double time per hour was claimed. The increase in these cases would be from 4s. 6d. to 5s. 11d. per hour. Some time ago I watched a party of men that was shifting timber on one of our wharfs. They were handling boards 10 feet long, 9 inches wide and 1 inch thick. It took two men to carry each board and one man to turn it up on its edge so that the others could get hold of it. For this work the men are asking 5s.11d. per hour. The new log also claims that double rates shall be paid to employees who are on duty on ordinary holidays at any hour. This would involve an increase of the existing rate from 5s. to 5s.11d. per hour.’ For duty on extraordinary holidays at any hour, treble time is claimed, which would involve an increase in the existing rate of 6s. 6d. to 8s. 10½d. per hour. Would honorable members opposite who are so keen to bolster up the claims made on behalf of the various unions, care to pay these rates? Would the honorable member for Cook care to pay them?

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Certainly.

Mr SEABROOK:

– The honorable member would be the last one on earth who would agree to pay them.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Any man who is torn away from the company of his wife and family at unreasonable hours should be recompensed for it.

Mr SEABROOK:

– It is said that these men do not desire to work overtime, but we know very well that they deliberately hang ships up so that they may claim overtime rates. I sincerely hope that the Government will lose no time in disposing of these vessels, and that it will then introduce a bill to repeal the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

– The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook), is one of those who are obsessed with the idea that every worker loafs, and lives merely to demand extraordinarily high wages. The honorable member desires, as he admitted, to obtain 25s. worth of work for every £1 he expends. He and his colleagues are never satisfied unless they are traducing Australia and the Australian worker. The Australian worker compares favorably with any other worker, but he must be given a fair deal. The honorable member talked of the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) betraying someone. If he did betray any one, it was the Shipping Combine, and his action was in the interests of the people of Australia. Whether those concerned represent Inchcape or anybody else, the public were entitled to know the contents of those messages. Dark corner secret methods should not be tolerated. The honorable member for Franklin complained, in a dirge-like voice, of the profits that the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers had made, largely, he claimed, out of the producers of Australia. The only alternative for the Line was to make a loss, and the honorable member signified his intention to support the Government’s proposal merely because the Line had incurred a loss. The honorable the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) devoted quite a lot of time to a reference to the alleged existence of industrial turmoil. I am confident that much of that turmoil has been deliberately engineered by persons representing capitalistic concerns. The reason why there was trouble on one occasion was because the ships of theCombine, in carrying migrants to Australia, had violated the laws of the country by bringing in madmen. Apparently it was the desire of the manager of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers to .turn one of his boats into a lunatic asylum, instead of insisting that the Combine should take the lunatics back on its own vessel. One of those lunatics ran amok and nearly killed two of the stewards. That caused a strike. I believe the whole thing was deliberately engineered by opposition shipping influences. The sabotaging of the Line has gone on ever since it was purchased by the Commonwealth, merely to create an atmosphere favorable to the selling of the Line. The Treasurer said that if the Line was sold, we should not be at the mercy of the Combine, as Great Britain would control our ships. The Shipping Combine is controlled by capitalistic interests which are so powerful that they have attempted to dictate even to the British Government, so that the argument of the honorable gentleman was a stupid one. To support his contention that Great Britain has a deep interest in Australia, the honorable gentleman mentioned that that country was making available to Australia the. sum of £34,000,000 to assist migration. That loan was advanced merely to enable British manufacturers to market their produce in Australia. We shall be forced to receive their goods to the amount of £34,000,000, and our artizans will languish. It has been stated that Great Britain built up a mercantile marine without government assistance. In order to encourage Britishers to adopt a seafearing life, laws were passed inducing people to such a course. One law ordained that the people must eat fish three or four days a week, and heavy penalties were imposed for disregarding it. In modern times all the nations subsidize their shipping companies, too much so when one considers the profits made by those companies. Our mail steamers are subsidized to the extent of £150,000 a year. That subsidy should be diverted to the Australian Common? wealth Line of Steamers. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) stated that £11,500,000 had been lost on the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers since it was taken over by the Commonwealth Government. In 1923 the Prime Minister submitted a balancesheet, in which the losses were stated to be £2,600,000. Since then a loss of £1,900,000 has been incurred, which makes a total loss of £4,500,000 for the ten years since the Line has been under the control of the Commonwealth Government. But the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) has proved that the reduction in freight on important products has been the means of saving Australia the sum of £4,000,000 between 1921 and 1927. It cannot be doubted that the existing fleet would save the people of Australia £30,000,000 in the next ten years, whilst the loss on its operations would amount to not more than £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) and honorable members opposite have endeavoured to create the impression that they favour the sale of the Line because it has made a loss. I do not believe that that is the real reason for the proposal of the Government. Even if the Line had made a profit a different policy would not be pursued. The Government believes in noninterference with private enterprise; but even that does not furnish the entire explanation of the proposal to sell the Line. I am of the opinion that the ships are to be sold because the British Combine has to be given a quid pro quo for the industrial trouble which it created in Australia two years ago, which resulted in this Government being returned to power at the last elections. The officers and men of the Line were subjected to all sorts of annoyance in an endeavour to create a psychology favourable to the return of the Government. Thanks to the good sense of the seamen and of one or two of the officers, the attempt failed, and it was found necessary to seek the assistance of the Combine. Before the industrial disturbance it was freely admitted that if the Government went to the country it would be wiped out. The sacrifice of ten Commonwealth. Lines would not have been allowed to stand in the way of Ministers being returned to the Treasury bench for a further three years. Some day, perhaps; we shall be able to prove that that is the reason for the decision to sell. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) argued that the primary producer did not receive the benefit of any reduction in freight. He almost suggested that high freights were to his advantage. Is that the reason why Mr. Bavin, Premier of New South Wales, proposes to increase fares and freights on the railways of the State? I have always believed that the bugbear of the primary producer was the cost of getting his products to market. Whenever it has been found necessary to raise freights it has been said “ The primary producer will be the sufferer.” I subscribe to that doctrine. A reduction in freight is a benefit, and a rise a detriment, to the primary producer. There can be no questioning the fact that it is of advantage to the productivity and the general prosperity of any country to have conveyance for its goods at as low a rate as possible. The Prime Minister has admitted that oversea transport is of vital importance to this country. If that is so, it is strange that he should be prepared to withdraw the only competition with which the Combine is faced and to place Australia’s welfare in its hands. This Combine is more rapacious than any other, and the most cruel. Honorable members have been informed that it was necessary for Australia to have a state-owned line of steamers in a time of peril, but that, now that we have a patched-up peace and losses have occurred, the Line ought to be scrapped so that a monopoly of the trade may be recovered by those who formerly fell down on the job. The Prime Minister’s argument is that the Line was necessary in time of war because other vessels could run quickly from the Argentine and Canada. I have never previously heard it argued that during the war Australia was brought closer to the markets of the world. Ships from the Argentine and Canada can make to-day just as profitable trips as they made during the war. That appears to rae to be but another of the many weak arguments to which the Prime Minister resorted in order to build up a case. The right honorable gentleman stated that he was not opposed to government intervention in trade activities whenever that was necessary to protect the interests of the people, and he went on to point out that the Ministry, in furtherance of this object, had become associated with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in the erection of oil refineries in Australia, the Government holding a controlling interest in the company. That movement, however, was merely the placing of the resources of the Commonwealth behind a British trust to aid it in its fight against the Standard Oil Trust of America. I have nothing to say against that. At best it can only be regarded as a “ shandy-gaff “ arrangement and, like the ireless and other semi-governmental activities, the private enterprise side of the business will benefit to a greater extent than the Com monwealth. I doubt if the Government will attempt to restrict the profits of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The Leader of the Government urged also that mismanagement was responsible- for the heavy trading losses incurred by the Line, and in his anxiety to evade responsibility he declared that any blame for the present position must be levelled, not against the Ministry, but against the board. Perhaps it would not be wide of the mark to say that the Government had in mind this proposal to sell the Line when it appointed the board, and regarded that course as a convenient way to evade responsibility. There has been a tendency on the part of Ministers to shelter themselves behind the numerous boards which they have appointed. But even if the Government did hand a public instrumentality like this Line over to a board, it must accept some responsibility for faulty administration, particularly, if heavy losses are incurred. Surely the Government has not reached such a pass as to be obliged to confess that it is incompetent to deal with what, after all, is a fairly simple problem if handled in the right way. The Prime Minister has suggested that, in view of the increase in Dutch, Norwegian and German shipping, there is no occasion for the maintenance of the Line as a governmental activity. Apparently, lie has forgotten all the declarations which he and others of the same political faith made during the war, never again to allow tho peaceful penetration of Germany to menace the financial and commercial’ stability of theCommonwealth. He appears0 now to be not so much opposed to; the idea of handing over the commercial destinies of this country to Germany or any other nation The right honorable- gentleman has asked us to believe that because of recent developments in marine engineering practice, and the use of superheated steam for the’ propulsion of steamships, it is inadvisable at present, to commit the Commonwealth definitely to a shipbuilding programme. That is’ a policy of despair ; it’ is a lamentable exhibition of lack of faith in the resources of this country. The Prime Minister also endeavoured to persuade honorable members that since there is open competition in shipping, Australia has nothing to fear from any combine. Actually there is little or no competition in big business nowadays. The trusts and combines see to that. The Prime Minister is not an innocent abroad; he knows that as a result of the development of trusts and combines the position of Australia will be seriously menaced if the Line is disposed of. But what will happen if no offer is forthcoming ? The ships, so we are told, are to be offered for sale under certain conditions. If notenders are received, presumably the conditions will be altered.

Mr Nelson:

– Or else the Line will be given to the Inchcape group.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The Prime Minister claims credit for being a business man. The way in. which he is going about the sale of the Line is anything but a monument to> his alleged business sagacity. Would any but the most simple minded of business mun advertise the accumulated losses incurred by any business which he desired to sell? And when the Prime Minister talks of imposing certain restrictions on the purchasers of the vessels, he overlooks entirely the fact that once we have disposed of the Line we shall never be able to enforce conditions upon the purchasers. If the company taking over the Line becomes insolvent, it will certainly not be resumed by the Government, and in the event of its disposal elsewhere, the agreement must goby the board. Therefore we have noguarantee that the Line will continue under British charter, even for one month, let alone for ten years. The remarkable feature of this debate is the support that honorable members representing country constituencies aregiving to- the Government. The members of the Nationalist party represent vested interests, and their attitude is understandable. But I cannot understand how any honorablemember claiming to represent rural interests can agree to the sale of the Line. It has been said that the primary producers are dependent on the world’s market. This Government recently appointed a Minister for Markets and Migration, but that appointment is futile, seeing that, the whole of our industries- will be at the mercy of the rapacious Shipping

Combine. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook) has raised a howl about the high wages paid to seamen, the go-slow policy of workmen, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but those things are nothing compared with the combine’s exploitation of the primary producer. Honorable members opposite strain at a gnat in giving an extra 6d. a week to the worker and with open mouths they swallow a camel in consenting to the exploitation of the primary producers by the Shipping Combine. I shall show briefly how the combine exploits the primary producer.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Give one instance.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The combine battened on the war. In two years of .war the British Shipping Combine made a profit equal to the value of all the shipping tonnage of the world.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Give an instance in this present year. ^

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The existence of the Australian Commonwealth Line has influenced reductions in freight, and therefore there has been no opportunity for the combine to exploit the primary producers. The honorable member will get instances of exploitation- by the combine’ once the Australian Commonwealth Line is disposed of. The combine during the war exploited the Empire when it was in dire peril, and what, therefore, would it not do in peace time, given the opportunity?

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable member cannot give a concrete instance of exploitation.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– A criminal who has been frequently convicted becomes an habitual criminal, and can be imprisoned at the discretion of the court. Past experience has proved the combine to be an habitual criminal, and it is only the policing of the Australian Commonwealth Line- that has checked its depredations. Even a man of integrity like Mr. Bonar Law admitted in the House of Commons that nine years ago he received £40 and in ode case £60 in return for every £100 invested in a shipping concern.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Give an instance of exploitation in 1927.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The honorable member for Gwydir would npt be in this chamber had it not been for the British combine forcing a seamen’s strike just prior to the last Federal election. He is a political accident, as is the honorable member for Herbert (Dr. Nott). The Government of the United States of America has long recognized the necessity for controlling its shipping in the interests of its exporters and primary producers. That country has natural advantages over Australia. It is nearer to its markets, has lower freights, and can easily supervise its exports. Why does not Australia follow the example of America and protect the interests of our primary producers by continuing, and if possible, expanding the Australian Commonwealth Line? The Government’s decision to sell the Line is a quid pro quo to the Shipping Combine for faithful service rendered in connexion with the scheme that the. Prime Minister arranged when in England for the Shipping Combine to force a strike on the Australian water front just prior to the general elections, so that the Nationalist and Country parties might use the cry of “ Constitutional law and order.” We know that the shipping companies of Great Britain subscribed more than half the funds of the Nationalist Party during that election, and now the Government is asking the taxpayers, indirectly, to refund that money to the combine. The people realise that, and are strongly opposed to the sale of the Line. When the Shipping Board took control, the Line was written down by millions of pounds, and, no doubt, it is now to be sacrificed, and Australia will obtain little benefit from the transaction. I have no doubt that had it not been for the crack of the party whip, there would have been an overwhelming majority in favour of the retention of the Line. Prior to the crack of the party whip on this occasion there has been no opportunity to give a quid pro quo. to the shipping companies for the funds donated by them for party purposes. The psychology had first to be created for the sale of the Line. That work has now been done and the Line is to be sold. On the 12th December, 1919, Viscount Inchcape made the following statement : -

Speaking at a meeting of the P. and O. Company, December 11, 1919, Lord Inchcape said that if the British ship-owners’ are to be up against the competition of the American Shipping Board, which means the United States (government, they may be forced into retiring from business. lie added that “ another competitor to private enterprise had come on the scene in the shape of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which having bought a few old ships at the out’ break of hostilities (1914) ostensibly to bring food to this country (England), has made a large profit out of running those ships and is now bitten with the idea of becoming a ship-owner and has come out to compete with private enterprise. If the British ship-owners have against them the resources of Australia it may end in them selling their ships to the Australian Government.” Lord Inchcape expressed the hope “ that Mr. W. M. Hughes (then Prime Minister) will be satisfied with the profit he has made for Australia out of the ships he has bought and that he will dispose of them and cancel or hand over to private owners the contracts his Government has entered into for live new ships.”

I have quoted this statement to show that this scheming for the disposal of the Australian Commonwealth Line has been on foot for quite a long time. First of all, the vessels had to be taken from the control of Parliament and placed under a shipping board. Then it became the task of that shipping board to employ every kind of sabotage for the purpose of creating the right atmosphere for the sale of the steamers. I have another statement to read. Speaking at a Chamber of Shipping luncheon in England, about 12 months ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) said: -

I do not know whether you are giving Australia the best services. I am told you are not, I am told you can accelerate the time for reaching Australia from London by ten days to Fremantle and 14 days to Sydney. we may be at your mercy but I hope to heaven von will exercise your power mercifully.

Evidently all that our powerful Prime Minister can do is to express the hope that the Shipping Combine will exercise its power mercifully. It is a poor effort for a Prime Minister who is held up as a great statesman to tell the people of another country that this young country is at their mercy. Australia would rather he had told them that it could look after itself, that it is at the mercy of no one, and that it can develop and utilize its own resources for the benefit of the Commonwealth as a whole, and not for individuals. In the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line of

Steamers the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole are to be betrayed for the sake of the boodling friends of the Government. Ministers went to the country at the last election on the cry of “ The constitution and law and order are in danger. “ Nothing is more calculated to undermine constitutional government than to have the Nationalists and the Country party in control of the business of the nation, using their powers in the interests of their friends and bringing law and order into disrepute.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– So weak is the case made, or attempted to be made, by the mover of the motion of want of confidence and those who are supporting him, that reliance has had to be placed upon conjecture as to what will be the future of Australia if the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers is sold. Reliance has also had to be placed on an interim report furnished by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. As that report has been ‘considerably distorted and misunderstood, and as it happens that I am the only member of the joint committee who signed the majority report and was not a member when the interim report was framed, perhaps it is right that I should, not for the sake of excusing the committee, but for the benefit of honorable members generally, explain exactly under what circumstances that report was made.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Will the honorable member read the whole of it and place it on record?

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I shall place certain things on record just as the honorable member did. When I became a member of the joint committee I was handed a file of evidence which consisted of something like 200 pages. A considerable portion of it related to the Cockatoo Island Dockyards, the remainder being the evidence which had been taken in regard to the Government shipping activities. I read and re-read this evidence, and carefully annotated it, so that I could compare the statements already made with those which would be made by later witnesses. I also had handed to me a copy of the interim report, and after earnest consideration I. found it impossible to justify by the evidence which had then been taken the recommendations contained in it. At a meeting of the joint committee, at which I asked certain questions, I was informed that the interim report was presented in consequence of a definite statement that had been made that the Line was’ being prejudiced owing to the uncertainty as to its continuance, and that therefore the status quo had to be preserved until some definite conclusions had been arrived at. The following sentence appears in the interim report : -

The committee has yet to examine further witnesses, the principal of whom is Mr. H. G. B. Larkin, Chairman of the Australian. Commonwealth Shipping Board, who has been associated with the Line since its inception - originally as General Manager of the Commonwealth Government Line of Steamers.

Later the report states: -

In making this interim recommendation, the committee desires to emphasize the fact that it has not yet completed its investigations.

On Mr. Larkin’s return to Australia he appeared before the committee on about a dozen occasions, and a number of other witnesses were recalled and further examined, with the result that approximately another 100 pages of evidence was taken. It will be seen therefore that practically half the evidence upon which’ the joint committee based its full report was taken after submission to the Government of the interim report.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Can the honorable member say anything about the supposed 8000 questions that were asked Mr. Larkin?

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I did not count the questions. I only know that the further evidence covered about 100 pages, and practically all dealt with the shipping.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– He was only asked about800 questions.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– Certain cablegrams which were marked “ private and confidential” have been relied uponto establish the case against the proposed sale of these ships. “When I became a member of the joint committee I was informed that as it was felt that the publication of the evidence might be detrimental to the future operations of the Line, and that as there was more likelihood of fuller evidence being given by subordinates if they were heard in camera it bad been decided to take all the evidence behind closed doors. In consequence of this decision I was somewhat surprised to find that matter which was regarded as strictly private and confidential was being used by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) when he made his speech on the subject on Tuesday last. But I am obliged to say that the cablegrams which the right honorable gentleman read, when read with the other cables before the committee, did not convey to the members of the committee the meaning which they appear to have conveyed to the right honorable member, and which he endeavoured to lead the House to believe they meant. Last evening the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) read a number of additional cablegrams. These did not come before the joint committee in any form whatever, and I had not heard of them until the honorable member read them. The unworthy suggestion has been made that the Government influenced the committee in preparing its report. I give the suggestion an unqualified denial. I feel sure that the honorable members who, in the heat of debate were responsible for making it, will, on more mature consideration, regret that they did so. There is not a vestige of truth in the statement. If honorable members will turn to page 19 of the report they will find a statement to the effect that if the Line is to remain in business it must progress, and new and up-to-date tonnage must be acquired. In the minority report the following statement is made -

The present steamers (five “Bays” and two “Dales”) cannot be expected to maintain the existing service without serious risk of breakdown and consequent dislocation.

That report also states that -

Owing to recent developments in methods of propulsion and the doubts that at present exist as to the most economical method to be employed, it is considered inadvisable that the new tonnage should be ordered until such time as the superiority of the Diesel or other engines has been demonstrated.

At the bottom of page 22 of the minority report attention is drawn to the fact that -

The Canadian Government has recently decided to extend the services of the Canadian

Merchant Marine and tenders are to be invited at an early date for the construction of five 14-khot vessels of approximately 10,000 tons each.

It is clear therefore that all the members of the joint committee agree that owing to the present extremely hazardous situation, and the uncertainty that exists in regard to the developments that may occur in the near future in methods of propulsion, it would be unwise to incur any immediate expense in purchasing new vessels; otherwise they, as well as the existing steamers, might very soon be found to be entirely out of date. It is also clear that although all the members of the committee agreed that the Line cannot stand still, there is a grave danger in building or laying down new tonnage, and the members of the committee who signed the minority report point out, that to maintain the existing service with the present steamers is to invite serious risk of breakdown and consequent dislocation which must necessarily mean heavy losses. Some of the vessels in the fleet have been running constantly for five or six years, and they need to be placed on the slips and thoroughly overhauled. In these circumstances honorable members have to consider not whether the present Line and present losses are to be continued, but whether they are prepared to build or buy new tonnage to continue in business. The question at issue is not whether the Government of the day acted in a statesmanlike manner in 1916 when it purchased the fleet, but whether it would be wise for this Government to purchase another fleet under the conditions .which now exist. We may well consider that it was statesmanlike, in 1916 when the country was at war, to buy ships and commodities generally to enable us to carry on the business of our country, and yet be just as firmly of the opinion that it would have been an act of even wiser statesmanship to have sold the ships and any commodities that had been purchased on the first opportunity that presented itself after the war terminated and the need for providing the services concerned had ended. In 1921 we could have sold our vessels at a profit and avoided any losses. I submit that the questions which we have to consider are first, whether the Line is a commercial success; secondly, if it is not, whether it

Mr. Gr. Francis. is necessary to carry it on under peace conditions; and thirdly, whether it would be of any value to us if war should recur. I propose to examine those three aspects of the matter. It is essential that the subject must be discussed in its commercial aspect, for debt means taxation and excessive taxation hampers business and creates unemployment, of which we already have far too much in Australia and in respect of which Queensland is such a shocking example to-day. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore), when Premier of Queensland, used to scornfully ask “ What is a million ?” I wonder whether he knew what the loss of a million of money involved. If he did. he does not appear to have cared very much. At any rate, in consequence of his extravagant administration in Queensland, the number of unemployed persons there to-day is a record. When a private individual incurs business losses he has to suffer them, but when Labour Governments incur them they simply say “ We will write them off.” They seem to think that if they do that everything will be right. Unfortunately, that is not the case, for the losses that are written off in this way as well as interest that is payable on them, must ultimately be paid by the general taxpayers, who are burdened year after year to find the necessary money. The burden rests upon the shoulders of every man and. woman in the country. To prove that the Line has not been a commercial success, I intend to rely upon the definite figures which appear in the report of the joint committee rather than upon intricate balance sheets and hypothetical figures.

The honorable members of the joint committee had before them much more detailed information than it is possible to place before this House, and they were able to delve into it much more deeply than honorable members of the House can be expected to do. The total loss on our old shipping organization to the 31st March, 1926, was £1,225,121. The loss incurred by the Board amounted to £1,937,815. The original capital of the Line was £14,S87,75S, but the value at which the vessels were taken over by the Board was only £4,718,150, so that there was a straight-out loss iu capital of £10,169,60S. Interest on this loss of capital at 5 per cent, per annum for four years amounts to £2,033,921, which makes the total loss incurred by the organization since its inception, £15,366,465. In case the profit, £3,692,971, which was made while the Naval Department was operating the Line, has not been allowed for, I shall deduct it from that total, which would leave us with an accummulated loss of £11,692,791. That figure is arrived at by assuming that the ships which the board are at present operating are still worth £4,718,150, which is absurd. Various honorable members opposite have endeavoured to prove that the loss is very much less than it actually is. The fact is quite clear that the whole amount of £14,887,758 was spent in purchasing the fleet. Only seven of the 54 vessels are left, and the venture shows an accumulated loss of £11,692,971, representing an interest charge of £548,648 per annum. The annual loss represents an interest charge of 4s. per head on every man, woman and child in Australia, and directly adds to the cost of living. That definite and certain ascertained loss must be set off against any hypothetical benefit. It is a burden that will increase if the activities of the Line are continued. It has been contended that the losses were incurred because of the decrease in exports. The following are the exports for the year 1922-23, and the loss sustained by the Line : -

I was not able to obtain the export figures for the following year, but the losses had gone up to £595,384.

I shall now deal with the matter from a spectacular stand-point. The Line started with 54 ships and, by a remarkable caterpillar process, it consumed 47 of those ships in three years, leaving a balance of seven. Honorable members who have advocated the continuance of* the Line have not made any suggestion as to where a further 47 ships are to come from. If the seven ships are to be allowed to continue, where are we to obtain an additional 47 ships to sell so* that the Line may carry on during the next three years? If the Line is the commercial success that is claimed by honorable members opposite, then surely they will be prepared to put their cash into it. That would be showing their patriotism and winning public approval.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– We are like other ratepayers - we are already shareholders.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– If the Line is such a good thing, honorable members opposite could carry on with it and allow other shareholders who do not “wish to remain in it to get out. The next question is whether the Line is necessary in times of peace. To deal with that phase, I shall quote the tonnage on Australian berths during the following years : -

It will be noticed that the tonnage cleared was greater than the tonnage entered. It has been very conclusively shown that there is just 50 per cent, more tonnage than is required on this berth. It costs no more to run a full ship than a ship half full, so that if the total tonnage were substantially reduced, the shipping authorities could both reduce freights and make larger profits. I shall now give the percentage of British and foreign shipping coming to the Australian coast: -

This gives an average foreign tonnage of 21.15 per cent. I have not been able to obtain later figures. It has been stated that foreign shipping acts in co-operation with the English combine. That is absurd. Individuals may do so for their own convenience, but it is not reasonable to suppose that all do so. It was shown by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Marks) that the Blue Funnel Line was responsible for the reduction of freights on the Australian berth, and that that Line was not in agreement with the British Combine. It has also been shown that the persons associated with the combines disagree with one another from time to time, yet it is seriously contended that, with this foreign tonnage offering there would not be a margin of safety if Australia disposed of its Line. Honorable members opposite have not explained why Australia was not subject to this dreadful menace- before 1916, or why other countries, which have not a government line of steamships, have not experienced it. The honorable the Treasurer gave convincing figures to show that New Zealand has not suffered from such a menace. That country produces approximately the same goods for export as we do, and those goods are grown and sold by people of our race, with standards and ideals equal to our own. They own no ships, yet their rates for sea carriage are notoriously lower than ours. The shipping that comes to Australia is Belgian, Brazilian, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish and American. It is absurd to suggest that all those countries are in the combine. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini), in referring to the combine, said that at times it was able to defy the British Government. The inference was that, although it might defy the British Go’vernment, it would not dare to use force against the mighty Australian nation, with its 6,000,000 of people and a national debt of more than £1,000,000,000. Again the argument is absurd. Great Britain has no merchant shipping line of its own. It has built up its maritime greatness purely through private enterprise. It relies upon open competition, even in the face of the combine, which has its home in England. Great Britain, to a much greater degree than Australia, depends upon its maritime service for its supply of foodstuffs, yet it has not suffered from the menace of the combine. There is not the slightest real evidence that the Line has cheapened freights. It is true that some officials of the Line claimed that about £2,000,000 was saved, but, although a special inquiry was made into that, no supporting evidence was forthcoming. It could not be ascertained, even by inference, that cither producers or shippers received any benefit from the existence of the Line. The purchase of new tonnage would not increase the cargo which is carried, nor would it create more work in Australia, as all overhauls would necessarily have to be done in Great Britain. The Line is not helpful to any phase of Australian industry or life. The committee expressly sought for evidence tending in that direction. The committee tried, but failed, to get any real evidence that the Line was of benefit, and in spite of repeated endeavours they failed to get any such evidence. Officers of the Line were directly asked about it, and were recalled again and again in the endeavour to unearth such evidence. It was never produced. On the contrary there is very definite evidence that the Line imposes a direct burden of not less than 4s. a head yearly on every man, woman and child in Australia. I was thoroughly in disagreement with the interim report. It was explained that that report was made to preserve the status quo of the Line. At page 19 of the report an account is given of how other countries have operated their shipping schemes. They have worked along the much safer lines of subsidizing shipping companies, instead of sinking capital in the venture. When offering a subsidy a government knows exactly what the cost will be, and it avoids hazardous enterprises that impose an everincreasing burden upon the taxpayers. On the contrary, there is definite evidence that the Line imposes directly an annual burden of not less than 4s. a head. The sooner we cut that tax the better. The only persons who derive any real benefit from the Line are it3 personnel. Of that personnel, 520 are domiciled in the United Kingdom and 513 in Australia. Among those 514 are 62 Australian officers and 27 apprentices, while 21 officers have their domicile in the United Kingdom. Disregarding those, it will be seen that 499 are domiciled in the United Kingdom, and 446 in Australia. What reason can be assigned - none has yet been suggested - by the Opposition for taxing our people, our farmers, bush workers, miners, and, indeed, people of all stations and occupations - many of whom are evidently worse off than these ratings - to the extent of 4s. per head per year, merely to provide special conditions for a favoured few? It would be much cheaper to scrap the Line and pay these Australian sailors a pension. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) in the course of his speech made a rather damaging statement when he said, “ It is evident that the Commonwealth Line has not had the support of the primary producers of this country.” That gentleman did not realize how damaging that statement was. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), who is much more astute, correctly appraised its condemnatory nature and endeavoured to explain it away. He said that it referred to our adverse trade balance. That is really beside the point. If the primary producers - or for that matter, the secondary producers - wished to do so, there was nothing to prevent them from insisting upon having the whole of their tonnage shipped by the Commonwealth Line. I wish now to refer to some remarks of the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore). With the courtesy which charmed and graced the two-up schools at Chillagoe some years ago, that honorable member made a scathing reference to the manner in which I had obtained a seat in this House. I did not make the law which brought me here, nor was I responsible for the death of my esteemed friend whose place I took. I am not a supporter of the law which renders it possible for me to be here without election; but, nevertheless, I am here by a process of law, and I was the third person to enter this Parliament in those circumstances. Of the other two, the last was a Labour man, and his entry in that manner was not commented upon by honorable members opposite. I propose to do my duty while I am here, regardless of those particularly graceful and courteous remarks of the honorable member. It is within the knowledge of honorable members that the States of Western Australia have ventured into the shipping business and Tasmania have ventured into the shipping business. Every State has, to a greater or less extent, engaged in State enterprise, with consequent loss and an increasing burden of taxation. It is not necessary to maintain such a Line as this in times of peace. If it were in any way desirable there would be nothing to prevent those who so desire from going into it on n co-operative basis. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Marks) has made it patent that the vessels would be of no real value in time of war, because they could mount only 6-in. guns, and modern cruisers are able to mount weapons having a calibre of 14 to 16 inches. Have honorable members considered what happened to the Commonwealth Line during the late war? A majority of the vessels of the fleet was engaged outside Australian waters; although, it is true, they were carrying on the business of the Empire, yet they carried little actual Australian cargoes. In all the circumstances, I must support the proposal to sell the Line, and I hope that the sale will take place very speedily.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

– I do not feel in a particularly pleasant frame of mind, having sat here all night with the object of learning in what way honorable members who sit opposite intended to justify the stand which they are taking in this matter, but without satisfaction. The time has not been unprofitably spent, as the country will more clearly understand the Government and its supporters. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook) this morning discoursed on his favourite topic. If he were deprived of the opportunity to discuss the Navigation Act, the Seamen’s Union and the Trades Hall, I wonder what his political text would be? I imagine he would find it rather difficult to concentrate upon any other subject. He deprecated strongly the standard of working conditions that- prevails to-day in Australia, especially along *he waterfront. He informed us that there were men on the waterfront in Hobart who had made up their minds not to do any more work. If they are in a position to retire, they would confer a benefit upon their fellow men throughout Australia, if they would divulge the means by which they have attained to that position. I am afraid that the case is not as the honorable member has endeavoured to make us believe. One of his complaints is that ihe seamen are asking to be supplied with towels and soap. I can confide to you,

Mr. Speaker, that the situation is far more serious than the honorable member has suggested; it has been given to me reliably that before long they will also demand free water; and I have no doubt that eventually they will be filing a request for baths and similar conveniences! I ask the honorable member to recognize that we desire to see humanity progress to a better conception of life than that which has prevailed in the past. The conditions of the seafaring man have never been better than they should have been, but, on the contrary, have been far below a reasonable standard. I hope that as time progresses the honorable member will become imbued with a more progressive spirit and a greater appreciation of the opportunity that an improved civilization brings to every man. I desire now to refer to the honorable the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page). I listened closely to his remarks, and it was made evident to me that he was adopting his characteristic role of championing the cause of commercial interests and aggregations of capital. He endeavoured to work himself into a frenzy by declaring that the many statements of fact which had been advanced by honorable members who sit on this side were merely bogies, wraiths, without substance. When he referred to the harmlessness of Lord Inchcape and his combine, he reminded me of the man who, on one occasion, visited a waxworks to ascertain whether the figures were alive. The honorable gentleman has evidently placed his finger upon an interested - I may even emphasize a very interested - spectator so intently absorbed in the situation that the Treasurer imagines him to be some wax representation of the Inchcape combination. I, however, realize the live menace that overshadows not only this but also every other country which finds it necessary to have a mercantile marine. Because of its insular position, Australia is dependent upon a mercantile marine, whether it be owned by the National Government or a private company. That being so, we should hesitate to take a drastic step which would deprive ourselves of the protection and the advantage of the Commonwealth Line. The Treasurer endeavoured, to dispel the menace by saying that it was only a myth. But he was unable to prove that this combination is not working to the detriment of Australia and that it will not make further demands upon our people by way of increased freights, if the opportunity to do so is afforded to it. The Common wealth Line has in the past provided a substantial protection against this form of vested interests.

Sitting suspended from 8 to 9.15 a.m. (Friday).

Mr MAKIN:

– The Treasurer suggested that in pointing out the dangers that would arise from the discontinuance of the Commonwealth Shipping Line, we are merely raising bogeys. He said that such dangers are quite imaginary. It is well to remind the honorable members of the ramifications of the Inchcape . Combine. Lord Inchcape has made his scope international, and se far as Australian communications with Great Britain are concerned, we see his hand in the Peninsula and Oriental S.N. Co., the Orient Line, the British India Co., Australian Union Steam Navigation Co., the New7 Zealand Shipping Co., the Federal Line, the Union Steamship Co., Burns Philp & Co., the E. and A. Line, Mann and George of South Africa, Cory & Co., the English Coaling Co., Port Said; in coal mines, jute mills and banking in India, lighterage plants at Bombay, Colombo and Suez; and in engineering works and docks. He is also connected with Mackinnon & Mackenzie, shipping agents in India, who, strange to say, are also agents for the Commonwealth Shipping Line. We ought to have had from a responsible manager an explanation of this extraordinary circumstance. The Treasurer sought to prove that freights had not increased in countries where there is no governmentcontrolled line competing with private enterprise, but the facts presented during this sitting regarding the- shipping position in New Zealand, completely refute that statement. I quote from Shipping and Commerce for 1926 - the official document of the shipping and commercial community-

Substantial reductions were recorded in oversea freight rates for cargo shipped at Australian ports for the United Kingdom, continental ports, Canada’ “‘*nd *,he United

States. *lt is some years since such a drastic cut was made in the general freight rates from Australian ports to the United Kingdom.

The inference is that such reductions had not been effected elsewhere. The statement continues -

Freight rates to Java and Singapore have not changed, but rates to South Africa, and to Manila, Hong Kong and Japan underwent considerable alteration. Last year when the Yamashita Line entered the trade between Australia and Japan, with the exception of wool, rates were cut to a minimum. Early this year the Yamashita combination joined the Conference Lines and rates were increased.

The effects described in the paragraph are the inevitable result of combinations being permitted to operate without competition, or restraint. We have heard the argument that combines cheapen prices by reducing expenses, but fares and freights to and from Britain are proof of the merciless way that a shipping combine, free of competition, extracts toll from the people. For the information of honorable members I shall state the opinion of a gentleman who is prominent in the shipping world, and has felt the hard hand of the Combine upon him. Mr. J. B. Patrick, who has endeavoured to resist the machinations of the Combine, and to run an independent shipping service, states, in a booklet issued to honorable members reasons why an independent shipping service is necessary -

The Australian Commonwealth Line exists to-day, not to capture the whole of the trade between Australia and Great Britain, but simply to maintain the nucleus of a service, thus ensuring an efficient service to and from Australia at reasonable rates of freight. The modern tendency in business to-day is towards combination of interests, and what is more natural than that the lines of steamers trading to Australia should have some understanding with each other as to the service they will maintain and the rates of freight they will charge. So long as human nature remains as it is, there will always be a tendency to charge as much as can be .got, and the service provided will’ be such a service as will ensure the highest return in the way of profit to the owners.

There an experienced shipping master frankly recognizes the danger constituted by such a combine as the Conference Lines. Mr. Harold Burston, editor of the Investor’s Guide, and financial editor of Melbourne Table Talk, has written on this subject -

The position of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers as set out in the statement of losses, and particularly by the report of the Ship ping Board, is serious. But it may not be so desperate, he adds, as to call for a complete reversal of the national policy, adopted during the war period, of giving Australian producers and shippers generally an overseas carrying service, independent of, and in competition with, the British-owned Conference Lines. That the Commonwealth Line has had some effect on freight rates is generally admitted; and it is certain that its withdrawal, leaving the Commonwealth without any locallyowned overseas fleet, would immediately place shippers at the mercy of the world’s big shipping combines.

It is clear from that statement that the warnings issued by honorable members on this side of the House are not mere vain imaginings. A pamphlet received by honorable members sets forth the enormous profits made by certain shipping lines that to-day control almost the whole of the Australian coastal trade, and also the world position of shipping and the heavy toll taken from British communities by the great Inchcape Combine which we suggest Australia has. every reason to fear. The pamphlet states -

Prior to 1924, shipping companies trading in various parts of the world were conducting business of a highly profitable nature; the earnings in practically every case, where figures arc available, were so considerable, in spite of a very stringent process in the writing down of liquid assets and the payment of handsome dividends annually, that reserve funds continued to grow, assuring those investors who favoured this class of security the periodical watering of shares. The Great World War, which came like a bombshell in 191 i, at first filled shareholders with dismay, but in a very short time it became apparent that they had nothing to fear - freights increased 100 per cent, in the early stages of the war, and kept on increasing in some cases to 1,000 per cent., bringing phenomenally increased returns to those fortunate people who were interested in shipping companies, great or small. The close of the war saw a marked reduction take place in the scale of freights for both interstate and oversea shipping, and in 1918 it certainly looked as though shipping companies’ shares would no longer be considered as gilt-edged securities and provide the abnormal profits they had for so many years returned to their shareholders. A careful perusal of the statements set out in the following pages proves conclusively the reverse to be the case, the earnings to-day comparing more than favourably with the wonderful figures Of the boom years.

From, various independent sources there is ample evidence of the manner in which the Australian people will be taxed by the Combine that controls a big proportion of the mercantile marine of the world if it has a free field, and can without fear of Government competition, fix fares and freights as it pleases. It is interesting to contrast with Mr. Larkin’s attitude in recent years a statement he contributed to a Sydney journal on 15th March, 1923- “ Australians shall not ship goods in their own ships without being fined by the Combine. This, in effect, was the law laid down by the great London Conference of the shipping combine, which caused me to take a counteraction that resulted in freights to Australia being appreciably lowered. “ So Mr. H. B. Larkin, general manager of the Commonwealth Government Line, wrote in an official communication which reached Melbourne to-day. He explains bow this important freight reduction was brought about.

Mr. Larkin’s letter states that no underlying political or other motive prompted his action, but that his hand had been forced by the discriminating methods used by the Combine against the Government Line. “My experience since the ‘reduction was made, “ his letter goes on, “ clearly shows that the decreases in freights are going to give a much-needed fillip to Australian overseas trade. “

We are still challenging the Combine, and shall continue to assert our power in the matter of freights, in order to assist the transport of our primary products to the markets of the world. What would be our position if we were at the mercy of these people? The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) said it would cost £900,000 a year to keep the Line in operation; but, as I recently pointed out, the Treasurer is not always fair, or, shall I say, as accurate as he might be in the presentation of figures to this House. . That was proved by the challenge of the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) who, when the Treasurer quoted the account I mentioned, said, “What! How do you make that up?” The Treasurer, realizing that he had been cornered, had to admit that he had included in the £900,000 interest and depreciation on all the vessels, including the wooden ships. His figures weregrossly misleading. He said that, irrespective of whether the Line made a profit or a loss, it would be equally unsatisfactory, because if the Line were making a profit the primary producers would have to pay, and if it were incurring losses they would, in common with other taxpayers, be indirectly responsible. That is a strange process of reasoning, and one which I find very difficult to follow. What is the position ? The Commonwealth Government is prepared to give the Inchcape Shipping Combine the right to exploit Australian shippers in order to enable it to make huge profits at the expense of our primary producers. If the Line made profits while under the control of the Commonwealth Shipping Board, they would be paid to the Treasury to assist in providing bounties to help primary industries; but if made by a combine they would be paid to the shareholders.

Mr Stewart:

– If all that has been said by Government supporters during the last few days concerning these ships is true, the Government should have scrapped the Line years ago.

Mr MAKIN:

– Yes. It has neglected its duty. I again assert that there is no , desire on the part of the Government to make the Line a success. It does not believe in governmental trading activities. It sacrificed the Geelong woollen mill, which was making a profit of 20 per cent., and had doubled its output. The depreciation charged, particularly on the buildings, was double the usual rate. Although the woollen mill was regarded as a gold mine to the people and a national enterprise worth fostering, it was disposed of at a price that was an absolute public scandal. As I have said previously, if those responsible for the sale of this public utility had acted the same way in public life, they would have been charged with fraudulent practice.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to withdraw that remark.

Mr MAKIN:

– I was only repeating a statement I had previously made.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That does not liter the position.

Mr MAKIN:

– I willingly conform to the rules of. the House; but I still have my own views on the subject The Government and the Commonwealth Shipping Board have not treated the Line very fairly. When the Jervis Bay was recently overhauled- at the Cockatoo Island dockyard, the turbines were rebladed. Prior to the introduction of an improved system of fuelling the average daily consumption of oil was S5 tons; but after this work had been completed, the daily consumption was reduced to ‘72 tons. This saving represented 13 tons a day, which for the 40 days taken on a trip is equivalent to a total saving in oil fuel of 520 tons. As seven voyages are made annually by each of the “Bay” liners, the annual saving in oil on each of the vessels reconditioned totals 3,640 tons, which, at £3 15s. a ton, represents a saving of £13,650 a year on each of- the “ Bay “ steamers.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– That economy has just been effected.

Mr MAKIN:

– Yes. The delay in carrying out the work was due to the continued absence of the Chairman of the Board. If a similar improvement were effected in the five “ Bay “ steamers an annual saving of £68,250 on oil fuel alone would be effected. We have been expecting the Line to render satisfactory service with inefficient equipment.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Where was the work of reblading carried out?

Mr MAKIN:

– The Jervis Bay was constructed in the yards of Vickers’ Limited, and the reblading work was carried out at Cockatoo Island dockyard, which proves the efficiency of our Australian, engineers, who are able to improve upon the methods of the firm of Vickers Limited, which has a good reputation in the ship-building world. The Commonwealth Line was responsible for the introduction of this system of fuelling on overseas vessels trading between Australia and Great Britain. It is remarkable that the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott), who holds such decided views upon this question, should have said that it was not so much the evdence of Mr. Larkin as the final balancesheet of the board which influenced the committee in coming to its decision. It is evident, however, that the committee was not disposed to go very far afield, because it could have compared the position of New Zealand shippers with those in Australia and it would have found that the lower freights paid by Australian shippers represent a sum of over £200,000. It is idle to say that the balance-sheet of the Line should be considered apart from the indirect benefits accruing to the producers by reason of reduced freights. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) admitted that the committee had found it difficult to secure unbiassed evidence, and thus confirmed by inference the belief of the Opposition that the Government’s decision is based on unreliable testimony. For a number of years the Government has sought to place the Line at a disadvantage by foreshadowing its early demise. Lord Inchcape, speaking at the annual meeting of the Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, in December, 1924, said : -

Regarding State-owned Ships in most cases it would h’ave paid the country which has held on to the vessels to sink them in the Atlantic or the Pacific rather than keep them running. In a great many cases more than half have been empty during the last four years. Governments ought to leave business to the business community and avoid attempting to compete with private enterprise. Governments are far better off in taking a share of business profits by income tax.

This Government is slavishly following the directions given by Lord Inchcape. The decision that Australia must make is whether in the aggregate the people would lose more in meeting Government shipping deficits than in direct tribute to Inchcape. Without the Line, Australia will undoubtedly be at the mercy of the combine. Before it is too late, honorable members should realise the gravity of the present proposal, and do their part to conserve this valuable public utility, so that it may further protect the people against the demands of rapacious individuals who, by their combined efforts, exact inordinate profits. The community does not object to pay for services rendered, but it protests against being exploited.

Mr WATSON:
Fremantle

– On general principles, and to be consistent with my election pledges, I ought to support any no-confidence motion levelled against any party machine Government. No matter how much I esteem honorable members personally, I am totally opposed to the present system of government. In this case, however, I am not called upon to support a party; I merely have to cast a vote either in favour of or against the proposal to sell the Australian Commonwealth Line. I propose to analyse the reasons given for and against the proposal. The Government says, in the first place, that the Line is losing too much money and therefore should be sold. It also claims that the losses are largely due to the hostile attitude of the seamen, that the Line carries only about 8 per cent, of the trade, that it cannot exercise an appreciable influence on shipping charges and conditions, and that, in fact, it has merely acted as an accelerator in regard to freight decreases and not as an in,augurator in regard to reductions; that although the overseas carrying trade has been in the hands of a combine, a competitive system is rapidly developing, and that American experience proves that government control of shipping is unpopular. On the other hand, the supporters of the continuance of the Line tell us thai it has been instrumental in bringing about freight reductions on several occasions, and that the value of these amounts to several times the losses shown on the balance-sheet. They say, further, that Australia should establish its own mercantile marine as an insurance against times of crisis. The operations of the Line, they declare, showed the necessity for it both during the war period and during the hold-up by the British seamen. Although the opponents of the proposal admit that the Australian people have been called upon to pay dearly for the services rendered by the Line, they say that an infinitely larger sum has been charged for other services and commodities necessary to maintain Australia’s advanced standard of living. It is also pointed out that our ships have been so constructed as to be readily convertible into cruisers, thus becoming a line of defence in time of danger. There is no probability, it is Said, of competitive methods being adopted, or even tolerated, by the overseas shipping companies, and consequently freights will be increased rather than reduced should the Line be sold. Considering the first reason advanced by the Government and its supporters, surely he would be an Optimist who expected the Line to show a profit on its balance-sheet tinder present conditions. The Shipping Board has to meet more- than double the expenses Of its competitors for similar services, and in my opinion all that was hoped for it was that it Would act as a check to the rapacity of the shipping combine. The wages

Mr. Watson. sheets of some of the overseas companies are only about 46 per cent, of those of the Line. I know what the combine did d during the war, and I have no doubt as to what they would be prepared to do again if Australia had no protection against it. It is not the cost of a service that determines the price charged, but the opportunity to charge. But I must say that the excessive losses of the Line are largely due to the hostile attitude of the seamen in holding up the ships. Surely a country is bankrupt in statesmanship when its Government is compelled to beat a retreat before any section of the people, no matter whether it be the Inchcape combine or the Seamen’s Union. .. lt is said that the Line carries only 7-i or S per cent, of the trade, and cannot exercise an appreciable influence on shipping charges and conditions. That is absolute nonsense. If the smallest trader in a town cuts the price of a standard article, such as Nestle’s Milk or Peterson’s stabilized butter, his competitors will be forced to reduce their price. According to the evidence before us, the Line has in three instances forced the combine to reduce freights. It is said by supporters of the proposal that it has acted merely as an accelerator in regard to decreases of freights. I cannot find a single instance in which the combine has been the first to reduce them, and I cannot imagine one in which it would do so. No business man would reduce his charges unless he were compelled to do it.

Mr Stewart:

– That statement was made, but no evidence was given in support of it.

Mr WATSON:

– That is so. It would be against human nature. If honorable socialists opposite were emempowered to take an increase of salary to £40 a week, the Opportunity would not be refused. It is contended by government supporters that, although the overseas carrying trade has been largely in the hands of a combine, the competitive system is rapidly developing. I do not know on what ground they base that argument, because to a greater extent than ever before the world to-day is dominated by combines. Their tentacles are spreading in every direction.

Even in this House we find the same thing: members combine to form parties which fight each other. Throughout the world industry is controlled by combinations. There is no competition in business. It ‘also has been said that government-controlled shipping is unpopular, that, contention being based on the statement that the percentage of cargo carried by American Government vessels is decreasing. In order to ascertain whether or not the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers was popular with shippers, I asked a friend, who in no way is associated with shipping and moreover is quite unbiassed in the matter, to interview shippers quietly to ascertain their views. regarding the Line. He has reported to me that the Line is in no way unpopular with shippers, and in support of that view he stated that during the preceding three months five vessels belonging to the Line each carried from Fremantle 1,346 tons of cargo, whereas vessels of similar capacity belonging to other lines loaded only 729 tons each. As against 400 tons of cargo taken from Fremantle on the mail steamers, vessels belonging to the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers shipped 670 tons by each vessel. _ At Fremantle, at least, the Line is not unpopular. One of the biggest shippers of perishable goods from Australia, the manager of a large co-operative company in Western Australia, told him that importers were indifferent as to the future of the Line. Importers, he said, are not greatly concerned with the Line by which their goods are brought to Australia. So long as they all pay the same freight, they are satisfied, because any increase in freight is passed on to 4he. consumer. Exporters, he added, hold the opposite view. In their opinion it would be a disaster to sell the Line. . Exporters said that in every respect they obtain better service from the Commonwealth Line than from other shipping companies. They recognized in it a powerful influence in keeping down freights. So far as I know, that opinion is held by all the exporters in Western Australia. I emphasize that the gentleman who conducted these inquiries was entirely disinterested and unbiassed, Honorable mem bers of the Government desire that Australia shall have her own mercantile marine; but they are .content to believe that that is impossible. They should determine to build up a mercantile marine, and not merely say that it cannot be done. The Prime Minister would not conduct the business of the firm with which he is associated as he has allowed the Line to be conducted- If it was not run on efficient lines he would dismiss its manager. Many businesses which are now in a flourishing condition have at times suffered heavy losses; but the directors have not felt that for that reason they must necessarily close their doors. Instead, they have cut down expenses, On general principles I am opposed to government trading. The Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers is, however, not 3 trading concern, but a means of protecting our people. I know something of government-control led concerns. For ten years, while a stateowned enterprise in Western Australia with which I was in competition made losses, I was able to make profits. The Government has made a mistake in viewing its Shipping Line as a trading concern. It is no more a trading concern than our railways and post offices.

Mr Stewart:

– It would be as unreasonable to say that the carriage of mails is government trading as that it is government trading to have a fleet of vessels to protect our primary products.

Mr WATSON:

– If the interests of the people are in jeopardy, the whole of the resources of the Government should be utilized to protect them. I believe that we should establish our own mercantile marine. I believe, moreover, that with proper guidance and encouragement that can be done. But what do we find? In Sydney there is a Shipping Board pf three members whose salaries aggregate £9,500 per annum, and a total overhead cost of over £90,000. That is an .extraordinarily high amount to pay to run a Line of seven vessels. Tn the face of such extravagance, what incentive is there for the men to do their best? It has been admitted on both sides of the House that, if necessary, the “Bays” and the “Dales” could be converted into auxiliary cruisers. For that reason alone they should be retained. I hate war; but with Europe an armed camp and economic shambles we should do well to be prepared. We ought not to sell any vessel which an mount a gun capable of firing a shot. In other directions the people of Australia have been called upon to pay heavily for the protection afforded them. In respect of two important commodities - sugar and butter - they have paid £6,000,000 above world parity during the last year. The Paterson butter scheme, and the protection of the Queensland sugar industry have placed heavy burdens on the people of Australia. That in turn has reacted on the Shipping Line. Australian sailors cannot be expected to pay 4½d. a pound for sugar and 2s. a pound for butter as against 2£d. and ls. 8d. a pound respectively paid by, say, New Zealand sailors, without requiring higher rates of pay. It can safely be said that Australian consumers paid £20,000,000 last year above world parity value for the commodities consumed by them. The Shipping Line should be treated as well as the sugar and butter industries. I am without party bias, and do not care a great deal whether a Nationalist or a Labour Government is in power. There is not much to choose between the two parties. Indeed, chey are like Mr. Maloney’s horse which did not like travelling up hill, and, according to its owner, had as great a dislike to travelling down hill. He explained the position in the words - “ Down hill is only up hill turned round.” I have given the House facts. Those facts are sufficient to cause me to support the motion for the retention of the Line.

Mr. MCGRATH (Ballarat) [10.15 a.m. J. - When this motion was moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the faces of members on the Government side expressed signs of rejoicing. The motion was looked upon as an absolute dud, so much so, that first of all the Prime Minister did not propose to deal with it as a want of confidence motion at ali. Later he had to alter his mind in that respect, and nearly every member of the Ministerial party has risen to defend the policy of the Government in connexion with the Line. It is true that a few members of the Country and Nationalist parties have not spoken, and I think that as a result of the debate in this chamber their constituents will want to know their attitude towards the proposal of the Government. I am surprised that members of the Country party have defended the proposal to sell these ships. I admit that, from the day the Country party joined the Ministry, a change has come over its members, and not only over those who secured portfolios, but over every one of those who sit in the corner. I remember the time when the Country party first came into existence as a political factor. It was a party composed of a number of hardworking farmers, who got together and drafted their platform. Then they handed the platform to the politicians, and asked that it he put into effect. The politicians who endorsed the platform were fairly successful, too successful, in fact, for the genuine farmers. They thought only of getting into office, and entirely neglected the interests of the farmers. The result was that both in the State and Federal Parliaments a number of farmers’ representatives became associated with the Nationalist party. It was then no longer a question of the farmers drafting a policy, and asking the politicians to put it into effect. The politicians had tasted the fruits of office, and they were determined to draft their own policy, not for the purpose of assisting the farmers, but that they might exploit the farmers. It was once said that if one fired a cannon down Collins-street, one would shoot all the profiteers who were exploiting the farmers.

Mr Stewart:

– I think it was Flinderslane that was mentioned.

Mr McGRATH:

– Very well, we will substitute Flinders-lane. The meaning is quite clear in any case. Here is an extract from the Age of 22nd July, 1924, giving Clause 20 (a) of the Country party’s policy as follows: -

Encouraging the establishment of regular direct shipping services with adequate refrigerated space at competitive rates to potential markets.

The opinion was expressed there that the service was not fully established, and that there ought to be more frequent trips. The Country party has now taken up the attitude that the Line should not be continued because losses are being incurred, that these ships are unsatisfactory, and incapable of competing with the ships of other lines. I contend that the Line has been badly managed, and the gentlemen seated on the Ministerial benches are responsible for it. There has been open talk that the present Chairman of the Line, Mr. Larkin, has been secretly coquetting with Lord Inchcape. It is well known that the service at Colombo is controlled by Lord Inchcape, and it is well known also that Mr. Larkin’s son has a lucrative position with the Inchcape Line. It is also known that Mr. Larkin, for some considerable time past, has been seeking to discredit the Commonwealth service. Let me refer to a cablegram despatched by this gentleman in November, 1925. He cabled to Sydney that he contemplated applying for six months’ leave of absence. Incidentally he resigned, and asked if it were necessary for him to visit Australia, as he wanted to settle down in England. He concluded by saying that he did not want to visit Australia again. The board cabled back asking him to come to Australia to discuss the policy of the Line. In the early part of 1926 he did come back, and differences arose about matters of policy. While he was still in England there was an interchange of telegrams about reductions of freights, and matters came to a climax when the directors in Sydney cabled to Mr. Larkin instructing him to announce that freights be immediately reduced, and the West Coast service abandoned. That’ cable proves that Mr. Larkin had lost all interest in the Commonwealth Line. The Government all the while allowed matters to drift. Fifteen months ago a recommendation was made that the directorate should he dismissed, but nothing was done. The Government virtually allowed those who shipped goods by the Line to think that the ships were to be sold. It allowed the trade to go to Lord Inchcape’s Lines, and did its best to divert trade from the Commonwealth Line. Those who had been in the habit of shipping by the Commonwealth Line knew very well that if they continued to do so the Conference Lines would exact reprisals from them later. I wonder how one can account for the remarkable change in the attitude of the Prime Min ister since 1923. Here is a statement of his, published in the Sun of 1st November, 1923. It is headed - “If you are fit. - Bruce issues a direct challenge straight from the shoulder.” “London, Wednesday. - The frankness of Mr. Bruce regarding the shipping matter at the Imperial Conference has created a sensation. He issued a challenge to the shipping companies to wipe the Commonwealth Shipping Line off the seas if they were fit to do it. During the course of the address, he was a. guest of the shippers of England. Mr. Bruce said : ‘ The Commonwealth Line is there. You can light it and wipe it off the seas if you are fit to do it.’ “ He could talk at great length of the Commonwealth Line, of its great activities in the past, and its glorious future.

Yet the Prime Minister has now declared his intention to dispose of the Line. He said that the Commonwealth Line was now free of political domination, and that it was pitying all the costs with which private shippers were faced. That is a, clear-cut declaration. The losses of the Line have not been greater since it was made. The Line has prevented fares and freights being increased, and one naturally asks, what influences have been brought to bear on the Prime Minister, and those supporting the Government, to make them alter their previous decision?

Mr Maxwell:

– lt is the logic of experience.

Mr McGRATH:

– How can it be the logic of experience when the Line had already been in operation for seven years when the Prime Minister made his statement. After seven years’ experience he repudiated the idea of selling the Line, and boasted of the work it was going to do for Australia. He challenged Lord Inchcape to wipe the Line out if he could. In those words he definitely challenged the strength of the Shipping Combine. Years have passed since that challenge was issued, and no one can say that the Line has not done good work in the meantime. It has been stated, and the statement has not been successfully contradicted, that although the Line has lost half-a-million pounds a year, it is saving at least’ a million pounds a year to the users of the ships, and it is doing that notwithstanding gross mismanagement during the past few years. When we remember the history of the Nationalist party, and how it sacrificed the.. Commonwealth woollen mill at Geelong, and when we remember that certain supporters of the Ministry were financially interested in the sacrifice, it is no wonder that we view with grave suspicion the proposal of the Government to-day to dispose of the Line. If we can get on to every platform of Australia and defeat the interest of the press- largely owned by the interests associated with Lord Inchcape- - we can convince the people that this Line should not be sold. If we can get among the people, Ave shall arouse public interest to such an extent that they will do what the people of America are doing to-day, and impeach members of the Government for their action in this regard. If that is done, certain men who loom large in public life to-day, will not be seen in this Parliament again. The Prime Minister himself, only a year or two ago, definitely pledged himself to stand behind the mercantile marine of Australia in its fight against the combined shipping lines of the world. It is significant that without even waiting to call -the Ministerial parties together, the Government proposes to sell the Line. The honorable member for Batman read last night a cablegram from the Prime Minister to Mr. Larkin in London that if the Government decided to accept certain terms, he would guarantee that Parliament would approve of them. The Government does not trouble much about, its followers in this House. Ministers know that they have only to make up their minds and announce their policy and scarcely a man on the Government side will have the courage to declare his own convictions. Honorable members opposite meekly and humbly swallow whatever this Government chooses to give them.

Mr Gregory:

– Oh, no. ‘

Mr McGRATH:

– No man has been more agreeable to this Ministry and more susceptible to its influences than the honorable member for Swan. Whenever a conflict occurs between vested interests and the interests of the toiling masses, whether they be on the land or in the factory, scarcely a man on the Government side will stand up against the Ministry. There may be an occasional split in the parties over the per capita grant, or something of that sort, but when vested interests are at stake the Ministeralists vote almost as one man. They have accepted the statement of the Prime

Minister that the Commonwealth Shipping Line was not a factor in reducing freights or maintaining them at a reasonable level, but the right honorable member for North Sydney showed conclusively by the cablegrams he read to the House that the Line had been instrumental in saving considerable sums of money to the Australian people. One would naturally expect that following such revelations at least some Government supporters would admit that they had been misled and would compel the Prime Minister to produce the confidential documents that were presented to the Public Accounts Committee. Much capital has been made out of the disclosure of confidential cables grams by the right honorable member for North Sydney, but when we are dealing with public moneys and public activities, every member of this Parliament has a right to know the details of negotiations that have taken, place.

Mr Stewart:

– It is remarkable that the right honorable member should be criticized for having read the facts.

Mr Watkins:

– And criticized by men who allege that they came into this Parliament to “switch on the light”.

Mr McGRATH:

– As an indication of the public view of the right honorable member’s action, I quote the following article which was published in the Sydney Sun of yesterday: - mrhughes lets the cat out of THE BAG.

To whom does a member of the House of Representatives owe his first loyalty?

The question is raised by Mr. Latham’s remarks, more in sorrow than in anger, upon the iniquity of Mr. Hughes in revealing secret documents connected with the Commonwealth Line.

It is unfortunate for the Government that the ethics of this revelation is complicated because the suppression of the facts revealed was the very finest argument possible against the Government proposals.

The point which appeals to the man in the street - and more especially the man in the street of the country town - is that the people, who pay the money, are entitled to have the whole of the facts when the Government proposes to make any important modification in what has long been regarded as a safeguard against exploitation.

Mr. Hughes, therefore, if he may have been a moral leper in the view of Mr. Latham, because he let out facts which damaged the Government’s case, is doing the right thing to the people who elected both him and Mr. Latham.

That the Government has been hostile to the Commonwealth Line, as Mr. Hughes charged it, is true enough, and no more hostile act than this suppression of the fight by the Line for low freights can be imagined.

Mr. Bruce’s disingenuity in brushing aside the importance of the Line by saying that the Line, after all, only carries 2.7 per cent, of the Commonwealth products abroad, is absolutely met by the disclosures of Mr. Hughes.

When the Line held out in 1923 for a reduction of 10 per cent, in freights, when in 1925 it refused to agree to an increase of 10 per cent., and in 1026 again refused to consider an increase of 15 per cent, in the Australian freight rates - this did not apply to the2½ per cent, of the produce of the Commonwealth sent abroad, but to the whole of it.

No attempt lias been made to contradict that satement.

Let the farmer and the grazier and squatter consider whether the cutting out of a Line which has saved him 15 per cent, of his freight charges- let the importer also consider - whether the suppression of this fact is fair on the part of the Government.

And let the public consider whether the raising of freights does not come in the end upon itself, and whether, if the Line be abolished, that 15 per cent, increase may not go to swell the profits of the Conference Lines - and as much more as the Lines like to charge.

Mr. Hughes is absolutely right when he declares that the losses of the Line have been more than set off by the savings effected as the result of freights having been kept down, and if he is able to strengthen that case by “ confidential “ documents which the Government was suppressing as damaging to its project, then the public owes him thanks, no matter whatthe sensitive Mr. Latham thinks of the ethicsof the disclosure.

Mr. Hughes is also right when he points out that had the steamers been operated on British articles theresults of the voyages of the past three years would have been turned from a loss into a profit - and the conduct of the Australian seafaring unions towards the Line have been so grossly overbearing and unreasonable that if the change to British articles were made to-morrow, by no means all the electors would protest against it - certainly not half such an emphatic protest as will be registered against the Government if they persist, in the face of these disclosures, in their scheme of abolishing the one safeguard the Australian people has against soaring freights.

It might bo as well particularly for the country members of the Coalition to consider that cargo - mainly primary produce - was cleared from Australianports in the year 1924-5, valued at over £160,000,000,and paying about £20,000,000 in freights. Let the members consider whether a freight increase of 15 per cent, (about £3,000,000) is worth saving to its constituents.

I quite agree with that article. Such a considerable saving as it mentions is worth consideration. I endorse the veiw of the Sun leader writer regarding the production of confidential cablegrams. The Prime Minister was indignant at the disclosure, but that correspondencebelongs to the people of Australia. For three days this debate has been proceeding, and the right honorable gentleman, is evidently determined that a vote shall be taken without a full disclosure of the negotiations that have taken place. He is afraid that the reading of the cablegrams would still further strengthen the case against the action that the Government is adopting. Knowing how thePrime Minister is very often able to make even a bad case appear good, I am surprised at the attitude he has adopted in connexion with the Commonwealth Shipping Line.

Sitting suspendedfrom10.40 to 11.18 a.mr (Friday).

Mr McGRATH:

– I shall read a letter from my constituency which does not come into frequent contact with the shipping line, but is chiefly concerned in the growing of primary products largely sold in Victoria. On 8th February, 1926, I received the following: -

Dear Sir, - At a meeting of my board of directors held on Friday last, the question of the services rendered by the Commonwealth Line of Steamers to the community was discussed, and I am directed to intimate to you that as the “ Bay “ Lino of Steamers has handled a large amount of this company’s produce, it is desired that appreciation of the , courteous, prompt and wholly efficient service rendered by the Line, so far as this company is concerned, be communicated to you as the member for Ballarat.

Yours faithfully, (Signed) D. KELLY.

Ballarat and District Co-operative Freezing Company Limited.

The letter was unsolicited, and is warmly appreciative of the manner in which the company’s produce has been handled by the Line. Of the four co-operative companies that have been established in Victoria, this is the only one that has been . able to remain in business, and it is having a hard fight to make ends meet. It is generally admitted that the Line has been instrumental in preventing increases of freights, and in some cases it has forced reductions. Therefore, companies such as that whose letter I have read, will be dismayed at the proposal to dispose of the vessels. We have just returned from a sad memorial service, at which we paid honour to the glorious dead and recalled their great deeds on the far-flung battlefields of Europe and other parts of the world. We are now taking part in the burial service of a public utility that has rendered incalculable benefit to the community. Some of our soldiers attended with me the British House of Parliament when Mr. Bonar Law, in a notable speech, disclosed the enormous war-time profits, amounting to £300,000,000, of the British. Shipping Combines. Our soldiers littledreamt that the Line established for the protection of Australia would . soon be sacrificed by the very individuals who had “sooled” them on to the Avar. We are told that Australia needs a large population, and that immigration should be encouraged. ‘Already our primary products, such as potatoes and fruit, to say nothing of butter, are more than sufficient to supply local demands, and fresh markets abroad must be developed. The Prime Minister said that the Line only handled 2 per cent, of the Australian export trade; but I remind him that the Commonwealth Line carries no less than 18 per cent, of such exports as wool, skins, tailors’ clippings, leather, apples, merchandise, fresh, dried and canned fruits, lamb, mutton, beef, frozen sundries, hares and rabbits, butter and eggs. The audacious suggestion of the Prime Minister that only 2 per cent, of the total trade is borne by the Line Avas purposely misleading. Wheat forms a considerable proportion of our exports, and is carried to the overseas markets by a large number of tramp ships that come here once a year for the sole purpose of lifting grain. All the other exports the Government is prepared to hand over to the tender mercies of the Shipping Combines. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook) and the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) complain of the cost of operating the Line; in other words, they tell us that Ave should take advantage of ships that employ black labour. One of the lessons of the war was that Great Britain, for a century or more, had been forcing British seamen off her ships, and employing Kanakas, Chinese, and other . coloured labour. When Australia established a mercantile fleet, many persons recognized the fallacy of the statement that the last Avar had ended Avar. It was hoped that the Line would check ruinous freights, and at the same time build up a mercantile marine. The design of tha vessels Avas such that provision Avas made for their rapid conversion into cruisers. During the Avar Great Britain was unable to supply cruisers to defend commerce on the high seas between Australia and Europe. Cheap defence could have been provided in the manner contemplated by the Labour party; but this Government is spending £5,000,000 on two new cruisers that are to be built in England, although within IS months of their arrival in Australia they Will no doubt be cast aside as obsolete. Yet the Government has the impertinance to say that its decision to sell the Australian Commonwealth steamers was arrived at because of the loss that has occurred in connexion with the Line. Such a statement is rank hypocrisy. The Government intends to sacrifice a mercantile marine that Avas established to protect this country. We are expending £5,000,000 on the purchase of two cruisers which, in the course of a few years W111 become obsolete, and will have to be broken up, or sunk, as was the Australia outside the Sydney Heads. I cannot understand any lover of Australia being prepared to sell the Line and to allow the Shipping Combine to exploit our primary producers. I know that there have been troubles Avith the seamen, but the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook) never misses an opportunity to decry men who have all their lives carried out labour that he is incapable of performing. He is for .ever blackening their characters. He said that it was impudence on their part to ask to be supplied Avith a towel and soap. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) aptly replied that it Avas quite possible in the future that the seamen would be asking for towels, soap and water. I admit that there have been industrial disputes, but many of them have been fomented by persons who wished to injure the political party to which I belong. In certain cases the men were justified in striking. In one instance a number of cooks were not being paid the award rate, and one of them approached the management. He was told to take his case to the court. He did so, and the court decided in his favour. It was naturally expected that the management would pay the same rate to the other cooks, but it compelled each cook to appear in court to state his own case. Is it any wonder that men go on strike when such difficulties as that are, placed in their way? I am not in sympathy with firemen who get drunk or fail to report prior tq the departure of the boat, but we must bear in mind that firemen and seamen have for centuries past been treated like pigs. I believe in the theory of environment, and if a man is treated like a pig, he will behave like a pig. It takes many years of humane treatment to accustom a working man to the fact that he is expected to render good service to his employer. I notice that the Prime Minister is now in the House, and therefore I shall quote again what he said in London on 5th November, 1923. The right honorable gentleman was entertained by the shipping combine, and at that function he adopted a fine attitude. The following is a report of his speech : -

Mr. Bruce’s utterances were unmistakably direct. “ The . Commonwealth Government Line is there, “ he said. “ You can fight it. Wipe it off the seas if you are fit to do it. “ He could talk at great length of the Commonwealth Line, of its great activities in thu past, and its glorious future. The Commonwealth Line was no longer under political domination, but was paying all the costs with which private shipowners were faced.

In view of that statement by the Prime Minister in 1923, there must be some ulterior motive for his recent decision to sell the. Australian Commonwealth Line. I regret that he has dropped the fighting attitude that he adopted when addressing the shipping magnates of the world. The Australian Commonwealth fleet has done great work. It has prevented the exploitation of our people and saved this country millions of pounds of public money. At one time the members of the Country party were proud of the Line, and boasted of the relief that it had given to the primary producers. I should like to know what influence has been brought to bear upon Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, to cause them to sell one of the finest public activities that has even been established in any part of the world.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– On Friday morning last the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) was bombarded with questions from the Opposition. First of all the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) had made a great discovery. He had read in the Sydney Morning Herald that at a joint party meeting the Nationalist and Country parties had practically unanimously decided to sell the Australian Commonwealth Line. The Leader of the Opposition and his followers looked upon that decision with great surprise, and they concluded that someone had let the cat out of the bag. But there was no secret about the Government’s decision to sell the Line. At the last election it was rumoured that the Line was to be sold. No government worthy of its name would retain a shipping line th.it was conducted at great expense to the people of this country. The Line had served the purpose for which it was established, and foi- two years after the war was able to make a profit. All shipping made profits during the war. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) yesterday referred to one case in England in which a man had made 60 per cent. on capital invested.

Mr Stewart:

– It was the late Mr. Bonar Law.

Mr PERKINS:

– At one time our own Commonwealth ships made a profit of £3,500,000, but that is not possible now. Why is not the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) Prime Minister to-day ? He did his duty in time of war and he well deserved the credit that he received from the people of Australia. But when the war was over he failed to understand that peace had come about, and for that reason he was superseded. It is regrettable that a man of his outstanding ability should be a private member. He puts me in mind of a good horse running loose in a paddock - capable of good work if put in harness. He is a good leader, but a bad follower. He should have learned his lesson from that experience, but we find that he is still in favour of the retention of the Australian Commonwealth Line, although it is making a considerable loss. He looks upon it as his infant, but admits that it is somewhat of a monstrosity. This country should no longer be saddled with the cost of the Line, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Government’s proposal to sell it. The Prime Minister would have been false to his trust had he decided to retain the Line. Honorable members opposite have accused him of ulterior motives, but I would point out to them that he is merely” acting on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. The members of that body are all honorable men, and after the closest investigation of the facts they have almost unanimously recommended that the Line should be sold. I participated in the recent by-election in the division of Warringah and I know that at several meetings the Nationalist candidate, Mr. Archdale Parkhill, who was subsequently elected, was asked what his attitude was on the question of the proposed disposal of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. He replied that he was prepared to deal with the subject on its merits. If it were found that the Line had ceased to serve a useful purpose, he would be prepared to vote for the sale of it, but on the other hand, if it could be shown that it was still of substantial indirect value to the community he would favour its retention. I submit that it has been established beyond dispute that the Line has outlived its usefulness and should be sold. We must face the facts. Last year £595,000 was lost in conducting the enterprise, and that works out at something like £1660 per day which the community is obliged to pay to keep the ships working. Various authorities have estimated the indirect value of the Line at from £1,000,000 to as much as £3,000,000 annually, but their statements have not been substantiated by the facts. It has been said that if we abandon the venture we shall leave ourselves at the mercy of the alleged shipping combine. My reply to that is that for every ton of shipping we require to-day 2 tons are available. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) had a good deal to say about the value of certain government enterprises to Queensland, but Mr. McCormack, who is now the Labour Premier of that State, has said quite definitely that the public enterprises in that State which are not being operated at a profit must be closed down in the interests of the general taxpayers. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Penton) challenged the representatives of the Country party in this chamber to stump the country with him on this issue, but I assure him that if he were to set out on a campaign of that kind he would have a sorry experience. Surely honorable members must recognize that our primary producers are far more likely to take a lead from the members of the Country party and the Nationalist party than from members of the Labour party who represent city constituencies. I wish to place on record the following comments on this subject which were made in the Pastoral Review on the 15th October. 1927 : -

The Commonwealth Ships

The committee appointed to inquire into the position of the Commonwealth Shipping Line have issued their report, and naturally it is a condemnation of the undertaking. However, one or two findings have crept in which show that the committee were not thoroughly imbued with the facts.

The statement that these ships were useful to Australia in war time is one. The fact is that the old ships bought by Mr. Hughes’ Government were of little or no use to Australia, as very few of them were ever in Australian waters whilst the war lasted, and very few of them ever went into submarine or mine-infested waters.

Thu committee’s report states that five passenger steamers and two cargo boats have little or no effect in preserving reasonable freights when the percentage of cargo they lift from Australia is considered. We hold no brief for the shipping companies, but we can remember no time in the history of Australia when the freights, under the existing circumstances, have been anything but reasonable, and the shipping provided by oversea owners has contributed more than anything else to the development of Australia.

Is it not a much more common-sense proposal to risk a period of higher freights, which could only occur in consonance with the world’s freight market, than to incur a certain heavy loss, which the community would have to pay?………..

The enterprise from the very first was doomed to failure, and, like every other State enterprise, from the railways down, can only be continued by heavy additions to our big debt. As Admiral Jack Fisher would have said: “Scrap the lot.”

On the 10th November the following leading article appeared in the Sydney Evening News: -

Fighting Hell With Petrol

The inherent, dyed-in-the-wool, bred-in-the- bone economic incompetence of the political people in the Federal Parliament was glaringly flood-lighted during the debate on the censure motion in regard to the proposed sale of the ‘Commonwealth Shipping Line.

The Government wish to sell the steamers because they do not pay. The Line employs 1034 men, and of these 473 men and 48 officers had their homes in Britain, while 149 officers and only 365 men were domiciled in Australia. So far it had cost £12,000,000 to employ those men, or £11,000 a man.

Those figures should shatter the delusion that the Line is “Australian,” either in essential ownership or in real domicile. The label is Australian, and the costly, wasteful, and unbusinesslike economic “strategy” of running the Line is Australian, but the steamers were built with money borrowed from Britain, have created a loss which must be met by more money from Britain, “ and are manned by men who are still domiciled in Britain.What Australia has done, therefore, is. practically, to paste a huge “Commonwealth” label on a British line, employ Britih money, and pay unnecessary bonuses to British crews.

The only defence that Mr. W. M. Hughes and the Opposition cun make against this amazing piece of financial wrongheadedness and financial futility is that the “ Commonwealth “ Line has had a restraining influence on the alleged Shipping Combine.

Now, assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a Shipping Combine, and that it profiteers, and would do so more greedny but for the existence of the Commonwealth Line, and assuming also that it ls the duty of the Federal Government to light combines, it must surely be admitted that it should fight them efficiently. The worst possible way would be to increase the cost of operating the Commonwealth Line, the . best possible way would be to decrease costs, copy the methods of the Combine, and fight that octopus where it is alleged to live, and in the way it is alleged to work. To fight a great low-cost organization with Australian high wages resembles an effort to fight hell with petrol.

The intelligent way to use £12,000,000 to fight a shipping combine would have been to use the money to start an opposition line, or -combine, in Britain, and force reductions of freight by sheer competition. But Mr. W. M. Hughes, and Australia generally, was too full of vanity to do that. The “ Commonwealth “ label must be pasted on the steamers, and Australia must insist on calling the ships its very own, and it 7nust insist in paying big wage bonuses to hundreds of men who did not live on this side of the world at all.

The farce must end. It has cost £12,000,000, -the interest on which will have to be paid in exported Australian wool, wheat, and other products for ever. If Australia still hankers to fight “Shipping Combines “ let the fight be managed with, at least, some perception of large-scale economic strategy.

To revert for a moment to the cablegrams which the right honorable member for North Sydney read in this chamber on

Tuesday, I wish to say that I had no objection to the right honorable member making use of them ; but I consider that a good deal of suspicion must be attached to them. Where did the right honorable member obtain them? It appears to me that some person holding an important administrative position in the Line, who is interested in its continuance, must have made them available to him.

Mr.Nelson. - That is pure guess work.

Mr PERKINS:

– I admit it. However, the Public Accounts Committee had copies of these cablegrams before it in their proper context, and after giving them most earnest consideration, it brought in this report. It did not regard them in the serious light in which the right honorable member appears to do. We have been given to understand that 1400 or 1500 questions were asked of various witnesses after these cablegrams were placed before the Committee, and still it recommended the sale of the Line. In the circumstances, I trust that the Government will give effect to the recommendations.

Mr NELSON:
Northern Territory

.- I have paid close attention to the debate on this subject, particularly during the last 24 hours, and I consider that I am in a position to weigh the evidence for and against the continuance of the Line. When the Leader of the Opposition gave notice of his intention to move this motion the matter was treated very lightly by the Government, which adopted the attitude that it could brush the whole thing aside with practically no consideration ; but as the debate has developed the Government has found it necessary to use all the ability at its command to attempt to answer the case set up by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) and his colleagues, the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) and others, for the retention of the Line. It has not been able contemptuously to evade the issues that have been raised, but has been obliged to accept the situation as extremely serious. This debate, instead of being based upon logic and justice, has merely proved to be an exemplification of the slogan “ Might is right.” It is well known what the fate of the motion will be. Honorable members know that the Government has received its riding orders from the Inchcape Combine, and that its members undertook, at a caucus meeting, to smash the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. Did not the right honorable the Prime Minister, without consulting this Parliament, pledge himself to the London shipping interests that he would dispose of the Line. It is well known that the right honorable gentleman has always been opposed to the Line, even when it was making profits. The followers of. the right honorable gentleman, in endeavouring to justify his attitude, have indulged in laboured dissertations on the State enterprises of Queensland. The main argument in favour of slaughtering this Line was advanced by the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott), and was . ably supported by the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook), and others. That argument was that Australian seamen are actually receiving £4 a week as wages. Honorable members opposite deplore the fact that they cannot reduce those wages to £1 a week that is paid in the slave countries of Europe. If our seamen agreed to accept £1 a week as their wages, honorable members opposite would be quite agreeable to the continuance of the Line. But it would be better to abandon the enterprise rather than have our employees sweated. Honorable members would like to see our ships manned by black labour.

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable member imagined recently that Australian blacks were being exploited for the cutting of steel sleepers in the Northern Territory.

Mr NELSON:

– I have positive proof that the Minister gave me false answers when replying to my questions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bayley:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Order. The honorable member is not in order in stating that any Minister or member of this House gave false answers.

Mr NELSON:

– I will substitute the statement that the answers were grossly incorrect, and the Minister knew he was giving me wrong answers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Chair has called upon the honorable member to withdraw his statement. .

Mr NELSON:

– I withdraw it. When the opportunity occur* I shall prove conclusively that the statements made by me as to the sweating of our blacks at 3s. a week in the Northern Ter-r ito ry were true. No doubt the honorable member would like to be able to employ black labour on stations at 3s. a week. But he has not the courage to advocate that to his constituents. Honorable members opposite ask us to let the high-sea pirates take over our Line, and assure us that the buccaneers will deal justly with Australia. Honorable members, and the community generally, are not so simple that they will swallow a bait like that. This allegedly philanthropic institution inflated freights to £15 a ton during the war period, and it was only because of the pressure brought to bear by the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers that freights were reduced to £7 10s. a ton. Just as the Inchcape Combine tried to exploit the community, during war. time, so it will endeavour to repeat that exploitation under peace conditions. Freights will soar immediately our Line is placed beyond the control of the Commonwealth Government. In all probability the understanding will be arranged that no_ inflation of freights shall take place until after the next general election. Did not the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Watson), one rf the most honest gentlemen in this chamber, who has no party axe to grind, tell the House that he had been the victim of the Shipping Combine during the war. The honorable member warned this House that those war. time actions would be repeated. Only the existence of the Australian mercantile marine saved the producers of Australia from being victimized. The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Seabrook), and his colleagues, almost with tears of blood trickling down their cheeks in sympathy with the taxpayers of Australia, referred to the tragic fact that our seamen were receiving £4 a week. If those honorable members do not take care, I shall paint a vivid picture of their action in connexion with the taxpayers’ money.

Our seamen give excellent service for the money they receive, which cannot always be said of them. The chastisement which the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Watson) dealt out to the Government for continually slinking behind the seamen was a just one. Honorable members opposite should refrain from referring to the State enterprises of Queensland; they should come out into the open and tackle the statements that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton), his deputy (Mr. Scullin), the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) and the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart). They have not dared to explain the cables that were read by the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan ) and the right honorable member for North Sydney. They have made only passing references to them, because they knew they were on insecure ground. Those cables placed the Government in an unenviable position. It has been claimed that they were confidential, and ought not to have been made available to honorable members of this House. The right honorable member for North Sydney has been accused of high treason, and a number of other crimes. After he had delivered his staggering blow, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) intimated that in all probability he would produce those documents. If it was wrong of the right honorable member for North Sydney to read them, it would be equally wrong for the Prime Minister to make them public. I consider that the right honorable member for North Sydney and the honorable member for Batman acted rightly when they made available this information to honorable members. One is justified in asking why it should be considered confidential. The answer is obvious. It is because the messages are destructive of the defence of the Government. Honorable members opposite little thought that “ the light would be switched on “ and that “ the burglars would be made to drop their loot.” Let us view the other side of the picture. How many of the documents that were presented to the Public Accounts Committee were damning to the Line? I guarantee that every statement or document which was in any way detrimental was inserted in the report in. black type, and that everything in favour of the Line’ was considered confidential. Who are more entitled to be told the facts than honorable members of this House? The right honorable member for North Sydney could not have made them public in a more fitting place. It was interesting to study the attitude of the Government when the light was switched on. They reminded me of political Squizzy Taylors. They were caught red-handed by the right honorable member, so they turned round and accused him of having been the culprit. To what extent will that bear analysis? The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) was put up to shatter the case that had been made out by the right honorable member. Has counsel ever been faced with a more hopeless task? He failed lamentably to defend the Government. This House is in the position of a grand jury.

Mr Stewart:

– But it is packed.

Mr NELSON:

– It will always be packed while it is under the. control of honorable members opposite. Having examined the case made out by the right honorable member for North Sydney, and the defence of the Government, which was made by its counsel, there is no necessity for the jury to leave the box; it can immediately bring in a verdict of “ guilty “ on all counts. What is the reason for this volte face on the part of the Government? Is it not pertinent to ask whether the Combine has cracked the whip? It has been suggested that certain political fueds are obtained from that quarter. I am not in a position to say whether that is correct or not. There is more than a suspicion that the hand of the Combine appears in this matter. Let us contrast the utterances of the Prime Minister to-day with those which he made in 1926. He then said -

Shortly after the Commonwealth Line was established, it was carrying Australia: wheat to London at £7 10s. per ton, when British ship-owners were charging £13 10s. and more, and foreign charterers were charging as high as £15 per ton. The Line was ofconsiderable benefit to the farmers.

Mr Prowse:

– Will the honorable member give the present figures’

Mr NELSON:

– I intend to show what a benefit and an influence this Line . has been. I ask the ‘ farmers of Australia, through their elected representatives, if they have paused to consider the meaning of that statement as it affects primary production in Australia? The Prime Minister dealt with the period that immediately followed the establishment of the Commonwealth Line. I want to be fair to him. I do not wish to make out a bogus case. I shall take the two. years 1916-17 and 1917-18. During that period Australia exported . 110,000,000 bushels, or approximately 3,000,000 tons, of wheat. It will be seen that on the figures quoted by the Prime Minister the fanners of Australia might have then saved approximately £21,000,000 if we could have carried the wheat.

Mr Prowse:

– -The farmers didno t export any wheat.

Mr NELSON:

– I have taken my figures from the Commonwealth Year-Book. On the figures I have quoted there is ample justification for the continuance of the Line. Yet it is argued thatno benefits have accrued to the primary producers of Australia from the operation of the Line. The Prime Minister admitted last year that the farmers had derived considerable benefit. On the 12th. July, 1926, the Line announced a reduction of1. (l-8th penny) . a pound on refrigerated cargo, of 6d a box on butter, and of 10 per cent, on general cargo. It has been contended that a member of the Combine was instrumental in securing that reduction, and that the Commonwealth Line was forced down to its level. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. “Watson) dissipated that suggestion. The Prime Minister is reported in the Melbourne Argus of the 13th July, 1926, to have said that he presumed that the reduction which had been made by the Commonwealth Line would be put into force also by the Combine. That is what happened. A comparison of the freights in 1927 with those of 1921 shows a saving to the primary producers on only ten lines of £4,071,802. Upon beef, mutton and lamb alone the saving was £1,473,120, and on butter £162,547. Will not honorable members enter up those figures on the credit side of the ledger ? No. But anything they can rake up in the way of depreciation. anything that will help to damn and destroy this most effective service and insurance against exploitation, they readily enter on the debit side. From the Prime Minister’s statement of savings as a result, of the Line’s reduction of freights in 1926, it appears that on eleven commodities a saving of £555,896 was effected by the primary producers. That total included £33,000 of additional freight concessions obtained by the Dried Fruits Export Control Board and the fruit canners. In the face of those figures, what becomes of the annual deficit of £600,000 which is alleged against the Line? If we face the facts honestly and fairly, we must admit that both consumers and producers have benefited very considerably by the operation of these ships. In any case, what is the deficit of £600,000 but a price paid to prevent the primary producer from being exploited by the Inchcape Combine and a bounty to Australian producers and consumers ? If Inchcape exploited the British people during time of war, what would he do in time of peace? Yet the Government proposes to hand the people of Australia over to his tender mercies. Shipping the world over is controlled by combines, and of what value will any stipulations and guarantees imposed by thePrime Minister be if the company that purports to purchase the Line goes into liquidation? In that event, what will become of our ships ? They were built to be converted into auxiliary cruisers, and who can say that some of them will not be sent on to these shores by our enemies to raid our cities and commerce? The great bogey of honorable members on the Ministerial side is nationalization, of which the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) and the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Seabrook) are particularly afraid. They make a great outcry about the fish shops and the bacon and liver “ joints “ in Queensland, but they never speak in condemnation of the Yallourn power scheme, which was initiated by a Liberal government, and has lost millions of pounds.

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It is paying its way.

Mr NELSON:

– If it were debited with interest on the money already lost, the scheme would be burdened for many years to come. I do not damn it because it has lost money; it was founded as a public utility. Private enterprise would not supply electricity to the outer suburbs, and a Liberal government in Victoria inaugurated a national electricity scheme which facilitated the expansion and development of the outer suburbs. So the loss made by the scheme is not material, because it is a utility owned by the public and operated in the interests of the public. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) indulged in a tirade of abuse against the Seamen’s Union. Yet he claimed to know the working conditions on ships and to be about to qualify as an A.B: If he does know the working conditions of seamen, particularly on British sailing vessels, I am surprised at his endeavour to reduce Australian seamen to the same low level. He accused them of go-slow tactics and of robbing the community. I was sorely tempted to ask by interjection upon what conditions he and a member of his family travelled through the Orient at a cost to the Government of approximately £400. I have not been able to ascertain whether he was a private member on a pleasure jaunt, or was engaged on public business ; at any rate I have not heard of any report hrs has submitted to the Government regarding his observations while abroad. Yet this is the honorable member whose heart is bleeding for the taxpayers. Inconsistency is a marked characteristic of some honorable members opposite. The honorable member for Franklin has persistently condemned the Australian worker, but at least he has been consistent. Members talk of undue advantages gained by a few working men, but in comparison with some of the statements one hears about the manner in which the taxpayers’ money is expended, a wage of £4 a week for seamen seems a mere bagatelle. No honorable member has a right to attempt to justify a rotten policy by vilifying the seamen. This debate has at least compelled Ministers and others to endeavour to give an intelligent reply to the charges that have been made against them. Mere traducing of one section of the community cannot be regarded as a justification of the Government policy. Some logical contributions to the debate have beer made from the Ministerial side, but the majority of the speeches have been hope less. I am satisfied that when the taxpayers read the Hansard debates they will realize in what a deplorable situation the Leader of the Opposition’ placed the Government when he tabled his motion.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

– Physical considerations, not altogether selfish, would have prevented me from speaking now, when the House has been sitting continuously for more than 24 hours, had it not been for some very remarkable statements made by members of the Opposition. At- the outset I shall clearly define my attitude towards the motion. I intend to vote against it, and I shall do so with very great satisfaction. I am in favour of the sale of the Line, conditionally, if the Government is able to impose conditions, and if not, unconditionally. The taxpayers, and particularly the primary producers, will be better off when the Government has disposed of the Line. T have endeavoured during this debate to consider the claims made with a view to establishing that the Commonwealth Line has been a factor in controlling and reducing freights. My conviction is that it has had no influence in that way. Indeed, having regard to its dimensions and the magnitude of the shipping opposed to it, the great annual losses; the amount of capital already written off, the wasting nature of the assets, and the fact, patent to all the world, that it is running at a heavy loss from week to week and month to month, it is clear that it can be a factor only in. the bolstering up of freights between Australia and the United Kingdom. I cannot see how a losing competitor can be a force in bringing down the charges of its opponents. I congratulate the Government upon its decision to sell the Line. This is the first demonstration we have had since the war of a willingness of a government to exercise, in the interests of the people, a little self-denial in the matter of State hobbies and experiments. The sale is justifiable on grounds of economy, and will be approved by an overwhelming majority of the public. To me it is a matter of the most profound concern that Ave should continue to increase, year after year, not only our total debt, but also our per capita taxation. The cost of Federal government has increased by £9,000,000 in four years, and by 16s. for each member of the population within the past three years.It is time we eliminated some of our national expenditure. The whole Parliament has been a party to all sorts of schemes, some of which may be good; but to ensure our solvency in the immediate future, drastic reductions in expenditure must be made. The ship of State is down below the Plimsoll line in troubled and uncertain seas, and we must jettison part of the load. If the Commonwealth Shipping Line is not a factor in reducing freights - and it is not - it should be sold, unconditionally if necessarily. It has been said that we should not have industries which cannot, within economic limits, pay to their employees a fair wage, and cannot be conducted under Australian labour conditions. It would be impossible for this country to engage profitably in international shipping, or any other’ international industry, if Australian wages and conditions had to be observed. Of course, every branch of industry would benefit, and employment would be increased, if low shipping freights, inward and outward, obtained, and I do not suggest that the Conference Line is tenderhearted, or that it has not exploited Australia. But. if Australian wages and conditions are, insisted upon in regard to sea transport, we must pay higher freights than rule in other parts of the world.

Mr Fenton:

– Surely the honorable member is not an advocate of low wages?

Mr GULLETT:

– No. But I am not so lacking in common sense as to imagine that vessels run under Australian labour conditions could compete with outside shipping companies on the high seas. If that were attempted, it would succeed only at the cost of an appalling financial sacrifice that would impose a burden on every industry in the Commonwealth from month to month, and from year to year. Honorable members opposite have furnished one of the most remarkable instances of inconsistency and sheer hypocrisy that I have witnessed in this Parliament. They base their case for the retention of the Line on sympathy and concern for the primary producer, and for the importers of this country! And one honorable member - I think the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) - justi fied it on the need for adequate transport of immigrants! Can one imagine greater political hypocrisy than that?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom:

– The honorable member must withdraw the term “hypocrisy.”

Mr GULLETT:

– I withdraw it. The primary producers have suffered from many pests, but the whole of them are as nothing compared with the enemy that they have in the metropolitan trades hallcontrolled party that fills the benches opposite. In Victoria the State Labour ^ Government has put an end to piece-work “ and the butty-gang system in the Railway Department, which have operated to the advantage of the primary producers and the railway workers themselves for many years. The Labour party throughout Australia adopts a similar attitude towards the railways.

Mr Prowse:

– And the farmer pays!

Mr GULLETT:

– Yes. The boundaries of the Labour party are the boundaries of the great metropolitan industrial centres. It has no more regard for the farmers than for the. coolies of China. Why should the seamen employed on the Australian ships have incomparably better working conditions than farm labourers? What have honorable members opposite done for farm workers ? They have never “ put over “ the dairying industry wages on a scale similar to those of the seamen. The dairying industry could never carry such a burden. Although the party opposite has but a remnant, or rural support left, if it attempted to -insist upon labour conditions in the dairying districts similar to those applying to the shipping industry, that remnant would be taken from them. Now I come to the pitying tenderness and solicitude of honorable members opposite for the great importers. Do they desire to assist the York-street and Flinderslane importers to bring in British and foreign goods cheaply? If so, surely that is a new note in their policy. Then we are told, in passing, that the Line should be retained so that we may more satisfactorily carry out our immigration policy. That is utterly inconsistent with the Labour platform, and the. conduct of the Opposition in this House. I listened, with other honorable members, to the opening speeches of the Opposition, and I think there was a general feeling that they have never had a poorer case, nor one more weakly presented. Then there came a change. A dramatic, almost a sensational speech was made in the course of the debate, and it greatly heartened the Opposition. Who was it made that speech? What a pathetic pass honorable members opposite have come to when, in the course of a debate lasting four days, their attack was galvanized into life only by a speech made by their arch-enemy, and the founder of the great Nationalist party, the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). What a reflection it is upon them, and what reading in Ilansard for their supporters! The argument that honorable members opposite raised was so feeble and specious that they hailed with delight and relief that single speech of their lost leader. I have never previously seen a party reduced to such a position, and I shall have every satisfaction in voting against their motion.

Mr LISTER:
Corio

– As one of the signatories to the interim and final reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which have been discussed freely during this debate, I wish to explain the circumstances that led to their presentation. I shall preface my remarks by reading the following extract from the final report: -

Having regard to the amount of public money involved, the frequent criticism, both in Parliament and in the press, and repeated requests for more detailed information concerning the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in May, . 1926, commenced, under the powers conferred on it by the Committee of Public Accounts Act 1913-1920, an investigation of the Commonwealth Government shipping activities, which, since the creation of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board in 1923, have included Cockatoo Island dockyard. Cockatoo Island Dockyard, however, forms the subject of a separate section of this report.

There has been a detailed discussion of the committee’s recommendation to sell the Australian Commonwealth Line. When the investigation was undertaken, the desire of the committee, naturally, was to obtain the fullest information. It was Considered advisable to take evidence in camera, because commercial men, and also the officers of the Line, strongly objected to making public the details of their business. I cannot understand the concern of the Opposition about the taking of evidence in camera, because that is the common practice when confidential information is required. The committee has been ridiculed by honorable members for certain statements contained in the interim report. The terms of that report were objected to by some of the members of the committee. The acting chairman of the Line asked the committee to present a report based on the evidence taken up to that time. He said that, as Parliament was going into recess and the committee’s final report would not be presented until it reassembled, the interests of the Line would probably be jeopardized because of the inquiry. The members of the committee, having no desire to embarrass the management or to injure the Line, presented an interim report, which has become the plaything of the Opposition. Those who agreed to the report have been adversely criticized because of their alleged inconsistency in connexion with the report finally presented to the House. A portion of the interim report reads -

There has also . been placed before the committee much detailed information relating to the financial side of the Commonwealth Government shipping activities; but time does not permit of such information being adequately reviewed at this stage of the committee’s proceedings; and, moreover, the evidence of Mr. Larkin may have an important bearing on certain aspects of the financial position.

The committee examined 46 witnesses, and the honorable member for Hindmarsh to-day said that the evidence was biased.

Mr Makin:

– The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) also said that.

Mr LISTER:

– I am prepared to admit that the evidence was biased; but that was only to be expected, because twenty out of 46 witnesses were employed by the Line, and, naturally, they would be in favour of continuing its operations. Of the remaining 26 witnesses, three had at one time been connected with the Line. Other witnesses did not favour its continuance.

Mr Makin:

– And were they unbiased?

Mr LISTER:

– I do not know if they were. Under the conditions obtaining, it was impossible . to be sure that it was unbiased evidence. We certainly got it on one side, if not on the other. The com mittee found that, to complete its investigations, it was necessary . to take evidence from the chairman ofthe board. He was in London, and his lengthy stay there has been . adversely . criticized, although he was . endeavouring to dispose of the surplus tonnage ofthe Line. We cabled asking him . to return, : and when he arrived in Australia he was subjected to a long and searching examination. Altogether 94 pages of evidence were taken after his

Arrival, and 47 pages of those contained his evidence. The remaining 47 pages contained the evidence of the principal officers of the Line, whom it was necessary to examine on the evidence of Mr. Larkin. After carefully scrutinizing that evidence the committee had no alternative but to submit, in the terms appearing in its final report, and this was signed by a majority -of the members. The committee has been criticized because certain cables have been made public in this House; but the committee neither published nor sanctioned their publication. ‘They were given to the committee as strictly confidential. Every witness was given to understand that the nature of his evidence would not be disclosed. That was necessary, because some of the subordinate officers of the Line . severely criticized the administration of the management, and if their evidence had been divulged their positions would have been endangered.

Mr Scullin:

– Would Mr. Larkin object to his evidence being made public?

Mr LISTER:

– We treated every witness alike. The evidence was given in camera, and it should not be divulged. If this Parliament cannot, trust a committee that it has appointed, then the sooner that committee is disbanded the better. I wish to know from whom the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) obtained the copies of the cablegrams that he read. Seeing that he read only portions of some of the messages that were presented to the committee, I also wish to know whether he was supplied with only the portions he read, or whether he had made available to him the full text of the messages. If he had- the full messages before him, why did he quote onlyportions of them? It could have been done for no other reason than to bolster up a case and to make -political capital for himself. In the circumstances in -which we find ourselves, I consider that I amdivulging no secret when I say that ‘in the . light of the cablegrams which the committee had before it, it was quite . apparent that the Australian Commonwealth Line did not exercise the influence . over the Conference Lines that we were fled to believe that it did.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– That as not so.

Mr LISTER:

– It is so.

Mr.C. Riley. - Then the honorable member should not have signed the interim report.

Mr LISTER:

– The final report of the committee was based largely oh information which was made available to the committee after Mr. Larkin had returned to Australia. Considerable discussion has taken place on the wisdom or otherwise of disposing of this Line. In my opinion strong evidence in support of our recommendation that the Line should be sold is contained in the concluding sentences of the report of the minority committee, which was signed by the honorable member for Cook (Mr.C. Riley), the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Parker Moloney), and the late Senator McHugh. The portion to which I refer reads : -

The present steamers (five “Bays” and two “Dales”) cannot be expected to maintain the existing service without serious risk of breakdown and consequent dislocation. To permit of the laying up and overhaul of ships, and, perhaps, the extension of services, new tonnage will be necessary.

No one can cavil at that statement.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– It does not say that the ships should be laid up immediately.

Mr LISTER:

– I disagree with that and direct attention to the following statement, which appears in the minority report : -

Owing, however, to recent development in methods of propulsion and the doubts that at present exist as to the most economical method to be employed, it is considered inadvisable that new tonnage should be ordered until such time as the superiority of the Diesel or other engines has been demonstrated.

It has been admitted by practically every member of this House in the last few days that the vessels which now comprise our fleet cannot continue running as at present. If the Line is to be - continued something will have to be done to put these vessels into a condition to carry on their operations until the various methods of propulsion have been thoroughly examined.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– In the meantime the Line could be continued under the present conditions.

Mr LISTER:

– I disagree with the honorable member. He was in the stokehold and engine room of several of these vessels with other members of the committee, and he knows that we were assured by . members of the crew that at the end of practically every trip the ships make they have to be subjected to considerable overhauling. But unfortunately the time ‘that they are in port is not sufficient to permit of them being properly repaired.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– That is not correct, for since the vessels have been taken off the west coast service there is ample time to effect necessary repairs to them while they are in port at London and the various Australian centres.

Mr LISTER:

– The engineers who are responsible for the regular working of the vessels assured us that this was not the case. In my opinion, this- also is a strong argument in support of the majority recommendation that the Line should be sold. It has been said during the debate that the Line is not likely to lose any more in the next two or three years than it has been losing during recent years. But seeing that the losses are chiefly accounted for by running expenses, and that these must necessarily become higher as the ships grow older, we must anticipate that under the same freight conditions the losses in the future will be heavier than they have been in the past. The five “Bay” liners cost £1,200,000 each, and the two “Dale” ships cost £S00,000 each, but they were handed over to the Shipping Board at a book value of about 50 per cent, and 75 -per cent, less respectively than they cost, although some of them were still on the stocks. If we are obliged to build new vessels in either Australia or England to supplement the service while some of the present ships are undergoing repairs there is not the slightest hope of the Line ever making a profit.

Mr Yates:

– Do our railways make a profit ?

Mr LISTER:

– When the railways were controlled by level-headed administrations, as they were until a few years ago, they were profitable.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Never mind the railways; we ore discussing shipping.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom:

– I must ask the honorable member for Cook and other honorable members not to interject. We have just had an illustration of what follows upon fre- . quent interjections. The honorable member for Adelaide asked a question which the honorable member for Corio attempted to answer, upon which the honorable member for Cook raised an objection.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing shipping and not railways.

Mr LISTER:

– With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to reply to the interjection of the honorable member for Adelaide. Until 1915 the Governmentowned railway system of Queensland not only paid running expenses, but also made a profit over and above the interest charges debited against it. But since the Labour party has been in control in Queensland the railways have been operated at an increasing annual loss, culminating in the loss in the last financial year of £1,964,365. The aggregate loss on the Queensland railways under Labour rule amounts to more than £12,000,000, and it is being caused principally by serious overstaffing,

Honorable members on both sides of the House have said that the Line has not received the support from Australian shippers to which it was entitled. Why was that support not forthcoming ?

Mr.C. Riley. - Because the shippers lack patriotism.

Mr LISTER:

– That may be so, but they cannot be forced to ship on any line against their will. It has frequently been demonstrated that the great bulk of our most profitable export, wool, is purchased in Australia by representatives of foreign countries, and is shipped to the markets of those countries in the vessels which they choose. Would it not have been a sounder proposition, particularly in the interests of the primary producers, - to reduce- freights, and so encourage shippers to complete the loading of each vessel. That would have paid better than sending them away less than half-full.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– That is the contention of the Sydney directors.

Mr LISTER:

– There are two directors on the Shipping Board who always out-vote the third. If there are any justifiable complaints to be laid against the management of the Line, the blame « cannot be put on the shoulders of one man. It must be placed on the shoulders of the majority of the board.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– The Sydney directors have not been in London to see things, as has Mr. Larkin.

Mr LISTER:

– They presented a very solid front to the Chairman of Directors when it suited them. Why did not the directorate institute the economies that were essential? The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) railed against his former colleagues of the Country party who have seen fit to fall in behind the Government and participate in the administration of the country. More than once the honorable member has advocated a system of elective Ministries. Now two of the three parties in this House have cooperated in order to place sound legislation on the statute-book. When that cooperation was effected, the honorable member preferred to stand aloof and play a lone hand. I regret exceedingly a statement which was uttered in this House to the effect that -

Mr. Bruce and his supporters have decided to repay the Inchcape group for their action in precipitating trouble among the British seamen, for the purpose of assisting the Nationalists in Australia to win the 1925 election.

I support Mr. Bruce and the Nationalist Government, and I would not sit on the committee for five minutes with the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) if I thought that he accused me of taking any action to repay Inchcape, such as has been suggested. Surely there is honour among politicians. Why should a man, because he is a member of a committee, be dubbed a hypocrite and a man without political honesty ? Such statements should not be uttered unless the person who makes them can prove them. Honorable members have no right to take advantage of the privileges of the House and pursue such improper tactics.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– If the Government sell these ships, I am prepared to charge the whole committee with being traitors. I shall place myself in the hands of the committee and am prepared to resign if it is necessary to do so.

Mr LISTER:

– The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr.Fenton) made an interjection during the debate to the effect that influence was being exerted, through agents, to bring about the disposal of the Line. I challenge the honorable member to prove his statement. He has no right to make reflections upon any honorable member unless he is in a position to prove them. It hurts a man who has tried to run straight to be submitted to the tirades to which we have been subjected during the last four days. The honorable member is free in his challenges to other honorable members to meet him in their electorates to debate this question. I have a recollection of a similar challenge which was issued three years ago in connexion with my action with regard to the disposal of the Commonwealth Woollen Mills. That action was endorsed by my constituents. No electorate in Australia was visited so freely by honorable members of the Labour party as was mine during the last election campaign. The honorable members for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), Batman (Mr. Brennan), Bourke (Mr. Anstey), three Senate candidates, Senator Hannan, Senator Barnes, Mr. C. J. Holloway, and Labour members of the State Legislature all concentrated on Corio. It was broadcast that I had just scraped in for the previous election by a majority of 400. I told my constituents that the Nationalist party, of which I was a member, supported certain principles, which meant nothing to the Labour party. That party was fighting the election purely on the sale of the Commonwealth Woollen Mills, and the campaign was fought very largely in. the district in which those mills were situated. If any one could reasonably have been expected to suffer from the back-wash of such a campaign, it was myself. Instead, I increased my majority from 400 to 5,860, and some of the first to congratulate me on my victory were men who had opposed me on the platform. We heard it said then, as I have heard it said during this debate, that the Government had done something immoral. The acid test of an appeal to the constituency immediately affected showed that the electors of my area heartily endorsed my candidature and approved of the action of the Government.

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

. I view this matter as it affects a principle, and not from the angle of party politics. Every one knows where I stand in regard to the shipping question. I consider it to be my duty to urge the Government to part with this Line, chiefly on the score of economy. .This Line should have been disposed of before this. To retain it on the Australian register and run it at a profit is impossible Honorable members of the opposition have stressed another view because they have had no other straw at which to grasp. The “ flapdoodle “ which has been talked about the- employment of black labour, is downright, unadulterated hypocrisy. No one knows that better than the workman in the street, and the producers for whom our friends opposite have displayed such a tender regard. This Line has to go. The one thing certain is that we shall not have reached the end of our troubles when we have disposed of these vessels. We have been living beyond our means, and we must curtail our expenditure. During this session we shall be called upon to consider not only the shipping question, but also many others that are equally vital to the community. Every proposal submitted to us must be investigated more carefully, critically and strenuously, than has been the case for the last four or five years. We have not been allowed sufficient time to pay proper attention to our Parliamentary duties. We must investigate as we have never done before every proposal for expenditure that is submitted to this Parliament. We are approaching a time the like of which we have not experienced for the last ten or fifteen years. There will be genuine unemployed in our streets in large numbers, and we shall have to make provision for them. But we must be careful to see that what we do is remunerative.

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · Gippsland · CP

– Many honorable members opposite have deplored the fact that this has been made a party matter. Had the course been taken of moving that the Line be retained, that might have been prevented; but the action of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) in submitting a motion of want of confidence prevented its being regarded as other than a party matter. The Leader of the Opposition and a number of other honorable members have said a good deal about the primary producer, and exhibited an extraordinarily tender solicitude for him. As one who is a primary producer, and is responsible to primary producers, I should like to make a few remarks regarding the attitude of farmers generally in the past and at the present time towards this Line. If we go back to the war period, we find that in the mother country our products were needed as they had never been before; that tonnage to take them to where they were most needed was hopelessly insufficient because it had been diverted to other runs; and that the War Cabinet not merely decided the number of ships which should be allocated to this part of the world, but actually went so far as to dictate the character of the freights which they should carry. It decided, for example, that meat and butter were highly concentrated foods which required little space, and that at all costs they must be transported if refrigerated space could be made available. Another decision was that wheat and wool were necessary, and that as large a quantity as possible of those products should be transported overseas. But some of our products, such as apples, were regarded as of insufficient importance in that, the greatest crisis of our history, for space to be found for them. The supplies of wool and wheat began to pile up, because it was impossible to find sufficient tonnage to transport them. Drastic action was undoubtedly necessary. It was not a time for an academic discussion as to whether private or government enterprise was the better ; their relative advantages were kept far in the background. For that matter, private enterprise was hardly functioning because tonnage had been commandeered and allocated to different parts of the world. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), then stepped in and bought the steamers which established the Australian Commonwealth Line. Whatever may be the general opinion of honorable members respecting private enterprise as contrasted with government enterprise, I believe that very few people in Australia did other than commend that action of the right honorable member for North Sydney. It resulted in our obtaining 54 ships. It is, of course, open to question whether it resulted in our having for the carriage of our products a “greater tonnage than we should otherwise have had during the remainder of the war, for the simple reason that the mere possession of these vessels precluded our obtaining other ships that we might have obtained but for it. Sitll, during the latter part of the war, the Line was of very great service to this country, and it continued to be so during the period immediately following when shipping was considerably dislocated, and enormous quantities of goods had to be transported. Under the extraordinary conditions which then obtained and the abnormal freight rates which ruled any ship could make profits, whether it was or was not up to date and suitable for the Australian run. As a matter of fact the freight on some commodities at that time was greater than the net value of the product, after the deduction of the freight upon it. For example, wheat went up to at least 230s., which is equivalent to 6s. 2d. a bushel. Again, although the British shipowners had at one period to pay a 60 per cent., and at a later period an 80 per cent., wartime profits tax, the Commonwealth Line had the advantage of being able to retain untaxed, the whole of the profits which it made. It was, therefore, in a position to initiate big freight reductions. The farmers of this country, however, considered that the action which it took in connexion with freight reductions was marked by too great caution, to say the least. In spite of that, however, they had a very friendly feeling towards the Line. They felt that it filled a need, and was absolutely essential to this country. Carried away, perhaps, by its extraordinary success, both financially and in the transport of goods, which otherwise could not have been transported, they passed a resolution affirming the necessity to extend the Line, and stating that future profits should be devoted to that purpose.. But “ the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley.” Those profits did not materialize. Then came the reconstruction period in 1923, when £8,000,000 was written off the value of the fleet, and,, instead of being a liability of the Line,, was transferred to the deadweight debt of the Commonwealth. The Line was then given an opportunity to show what it could do without overcapitalization. I believe that the primary producers generally approved of that reconstruction, perhaps in a chastened spirit; but, in the light of their experience of the previous year or two, they were not very hopeful that the operations would prove payable. It soon became apparent that a line whose working costs were two or three times as great as those of its overseas competitors, could never hope to be an efficient and effective instrument in the securing of the lowest possible freight rates. Only recently the United States of America have had an exactly similar experience; though the disparity between American and British conditions is not nearly so great as that between the Australian and the British. In 1924, a year after the reconstruction of the Line had taken place, and its values had been written down, the farmers dropped the Shipping Line plank which was then in their platform. I am digressing to make this reference, because so much has been said regarding a change of mind on the part of country people towards this Line. The change of mind occurred not only with politicians, but also with the people in the country. They dropped that plank of their platform which affirmed the desirability of the Commonwealth Line as a piece of Utopian idealism, and inserted in its stead one that the Government is now translating into action. There was a humorist at a conference which took place when this matter was dealt with. He suggested that all that was required was a slight amendment to the original resolution, so that instead of its reading “ The future profits shall be used for the extension of the Line “ it would read, “ The future losses shall be used for the extinction of the Line.” But the more serious minded members carried the following resolution: -

To encourage the establishment of regular, direct shipping services, with adequate refrigerated space, at competitive rates, to potential markets.

The Commonwealth Shipping Line was not mentioned in the resolution, and there is no suggestion that it was referred to. We have been told that the outlook of the farmers has changed. It has changed, in harmony with facts, as it must, as all opinion must change, if our politics are not to became petrified. During and immediately after the war the Commonwealth Line was, as I lave admitted, a benefactor to Australia. Then came the second stage of its history - that from its re-construction in 1923 “to the present time. That has been the testing period, and there are various opinions as to how it has emerged from the test. Some members of the Opposition, who, as members of the Public Accounts Committee, heard the whole of the evidence, have come to one conclusion; other honorable members on this side of the House, with exactly the same evidence before them, have come to an entirely different decision. But one definitely established fact is that the Line has made extraordinarily heavy losses. The advantage it has been to the producers and the effect it has had upon freights, is at least open to question. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) is satisfied that the Line has done a. good deal towards effecting a reduction of freights, even during the last few years, whilst the honorable members for Robertson (Mi. Gardner), Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) and Corio (Mr. Lister) are quite convinced that it is of no benefit to the pm- mary producers now, whatever it may have been a few years ago.

The honorable member for Cook mentioned a specific instance which he regarded as showing that the Line had been the means ‘ of reducing the freight on canned fruits. He said that that rate had been reduced from 70s. to 50s. a ton. In my opinion that reduction was brought about by an agency apart from the Com monwealth Line and any other shipping enterprise. Just prior to that reduction the Dried Fruits Export Control Board, exercising a power which this Parliament had given to it to negotiate on an industry basis for the whole of Australia, succeeded in inducing the Conference Lines to reduce the freight on dried fruits from 70s. to 50s. per ton. The credit for that reduction was due entirely to the board, and I believe that the corresponding reduction in respect of canned fruits, which +he honorable member for Cook ascribed entirely to the Commonwealth Line, merely followed the other automatically. Moreover, the Butter Export Control Board has recently secured from the Conference Lines, through its London agency, an arrangement whereby the board will receive 2£ per cent, discount upon a certain, quantity of butter, 5 per cent, if the quantity be so much greater, and 7£ per cent, if it should exceed 70,000 tons. There is no evidence that the Commonwealth Line was ahead of the Conference Lines when that arrangement was made. If we compare the tonnage available during the war and immediate post-war years with that available to-day, we find that immediately after the war Australia was served by the Commonwealth’s 54 ships and relatively few others. To-day the position has entirely .altered; the tonnage on the Australian routes is so abundant that the Commonwealth Line’s proportion of it is very small.

During this debate very many figures have been quoted, and I shall deal with a few of them.. Last year the Commonwealth Line carried eleven of every 1,000 bags of wheat exported, 23 of every 1,000 bales of wool, 5.7 per cent, of the flour and pollard, 2.6 per cent, of the beef, 12.9 per cent, of the mutton, and 12.1 per cent, of the lamb. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) stated that the Commonwealth Line is particularly well adapted for the carriage of chilled meat. That is so, but if the Line is sold, the conditions of sale will require ‘ the provision of an equivalent refrigerated space; in other words, either the existing ships of the Commonwealth Line must be continued on this .run or equivalent refrigerated space must be provided by other vessels.

Therefore, Ave need have no fear on that score. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Penton) made the surprising statement that 50 pei cent, of Victoria’s export of apples this year had been despatched by the Commonwealth Line. I interjected that so far as I knew no apples had been sent from Victoria this year. I find that a very small quantity, less than 9,000 cases, Avas exported, and of course it Avas very easy for any ona line to carry 50 per cent, of a total quantity that Avas less than the produce of a single orchard. A better illustration is the export trade of Tasmania in a season of light apple production; of 1,100,000 cases sent from that State the Commonwealth Line carried just 10 per cent. I do not wish to belittle the usefulness of the Line as a carrier of refrigerated cargo, but I desire honorable members to see in proper ‘perspective the position that this enterprise occupies in respect of refrigerated tonnage.

The two questions we have to ask ourselves are - “Is the Line doing anything which would not be done if it did not exist as a government enterprise ? “ and secondly - “ Is it giving advantages in either freight rates or space which we shall lose if it ceases to operate as a government concern ? “ I have already said that so far as perishable cargo is concerned one of the conditions of the sale Vill be that refrigerated space at least equal to that now provided by the Line shall be available to Australian shippers. In regard to freights, have we received advantages which compensate for the expenditure of approximately £600,000 a year ? Statistics prove that during the last six or seven years freight reductions have been greater in other parts of the world than in Australia. The Treasurer quoted a lengthy list of rates from Brassey’s Naval Annual, which showed an extraordinary drop between the years 1920 and 1925. I shall repeat two comparisons which are of particular interest to Australia. The River Plate exports large quantities of. chilled meat, and in those five years the freight rates were reduced by S7 per cent, from the lower ports, and 86 per cent, from San Lorenzo. The reductions on the Australian route in that period were from 27 ^ per cent, on greasy wool to 54 per cent, on frozen beef. However satisfactory the Australian reductions may have been, they were extremely small in comparison Avith those which had taken place in other parts of the world where there are no government controlled shipping lines. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the existence of a government shipping line is necessarily a factor in securing freight reductions.

Mr Coleman:

– What about New Zealand freights?

Mr PATERSON:

– I shall quote a’ few figures - which will make the honorable member repent of that interjection. From Auckland to London via the Panania Canal is 110 miles further than the distance from Melbourne to London via the Suez Canal, so that it cannot be said that any advantage enjoyed by New Zealand in respect of -freight rates is because of its nearness to the market. Yet on the three commodities which the dominion exports in competition with Australia - dairy produce, lamb, and wool - it has an advantage. The freight rate on lambs is 1.25d. from Australia and 1.18d. from New Zealand. In regard to Wool. notwithstanding that Australia is very much the greater exporter, New Zealand has a slight advantage, the rates being 1.04d. as against 1.06d. On butter, the rate is 4s. a box from both countries, but New Zealand enjoys the bigger discount. Until the recent arrangement was made by the Butter Export Control Board Australia received no discount. while New Zealand has been enjoying a discount of 7£ per cent, for years, and in 1929-30 Will benefit by a discount of 12J per cent. The arrangements recently made by Australia will give to our shippers only part of that advantage. We shall get a discount of 2^ per cent, if Ave export 40,000 tons and over; of 5 per cent, if Ave export 55,000 tons and over, and of 7£ per cent, of the New Zealand rate, if we send away more butter than Ave have sent previously in one year. New Zealand has an advantage over us in regard to dairy, products. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) yesterday quoted the freight on. apples as being to the advantage of the Australian orchardist. The fact is that the rate on apples is the same both in Australia and

New Zealand, namely, 3s. 6d. a case. The honorable member said that it was 4s. in New Zealand and 3s. 6d. in Australia. I am in no way exaggerating when I say that in freight rates the advantages are with New Zealand.

Mr Fenton:

– There are other products.

Mr PATERSON:

– There may be small quantities of other products sent away; but for lamb, butter and wool, New Zealand has better rates than we have, and the rates for apples are the same. Can anything more striking be found to show the futility of Australian Commonwealth Line as an effective instrument for freight reductions than the fact that a small sister dominion sends away less wool than we do and yet get a better freight rate, although it has never had the benefit - if it can be called a benefit - of a government-controlled line ? The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) painted a terrible picture of the cupidity of the British ship-owners. He suggested that they would practically squeeze the blood from the primary producers of Australia. All I can say in reply is that the results in New Zealand show that the Conference Line has squeezed less from the New Zealand producer than from the Australian producer, who has the supposed protection of the Australian Commonwealth Line. I wish now to say a word or to about the minority report. By three specific instances quoted in that report the members who signed it endeavoured to show that the Line has been of great benefit to the primary producers. In one instance it is asserted that the Line secured a big reduction in ocean freights from this end, which directly affected the primary producers of this country. I do not wish to take from the Line any credit which may be due to it in that respect, but the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) made it very clear that the prime mover in bringing about that reduction was a member of the Conference Line, and not the Australian Commonwealth Line at all, and that this Line had wrongly taken credit for something that was instigated by one of the Conference Lines. I come now to the two other cases relating to freights that are raised in the minority report, in which it is claimed that the Australian Commonwealth Line was the means of preventing increases from the United Kingdom to Australia. I was particularly interested in the case put by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore). He was the first speaker in this House to stress strongly the tremendous advantage to Australia of preventing an increase in rates on goods which we import from the Old Country. If that opinion had been expressed by a’n honorable member on this side of the House, I could have understood it; but it is a strange opinion to come from an honorable member, who has his fiscal beliefs, and has said publicly that if 50 per cent, tariff protection is .1101 high enough to keep out imports, make the rate 75 per cent., and if 75 per cent, is not enough, make it 100 per cent. It is difficult to understand the desire of the honorable member for Dalley to see freights from Great Britain to this country as low as possible, because he must realize that every reduction in rates tend to reduce the tariff wall which he himself seeks to make so high, and any increase, however undesirable it may be in itself, tends to bring about the fiscal millenium which he longs for. I have said a little about the history of the Line, and I am willing to admit, as are almost all ‘ members of the House, that it served a most useful purpose during the war, and for two or three years afterwards. From then up to the present the Line has made a considerable loss, and has left us in no better position than that of the Dominion of New Zealand, which has no governmentcontrolled Line. I wish now to say one or two words about certain cables and confidential information, respecting which a great deal has been said in this House. The Public Accounts Committee received in evidence a number of confidential documents. It studied the whole of them and came to its conclusions. But, advisedly, it did not place any confidential evidence before the House. It regarded that evidence as having been given to the committee in strict confidence. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) the other day asked the Prime Minister if he would make available to honorable members the confidential cmomunications referred to in the committee’s report. The Government at once made inquiries from the board. I wish honorable members to notice the sequence of events. The Prime Minister spoke in’this House on Tuesday, last, and on the same day, in response to his message asking for information respecting the questions put by the honor able member for Cook, the board sent a reply, which was received on Wednesday. The Government then for the first time saw some of the cables in question. There was no suppression by it of any information whatever. It has been suggested that the Government has deliberately suppressed information which it should have given to honorable members. The Government was not in possession, of that information until Wednesday, the day after the Prime Minister spoke, and it did not disclose the cables to any person. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) read some of the cables in the House on Wednesday afternoon before the Government had had an opportunity of considering them. I say definitely that the right honorable member for North Sydney did not obtain that information from the Government, and it is now known that he did not obtain it from the board, because yesterday the Government received from the board the following telegram: -

Board at meeting to-day passed resolution repudiating leakage of confidential information here and decided to request Prime Minister to have the matter investigated at the earliest possible moment in order to vindicate members of this organization. Please convey this to the Prime Minister.

That telegram was addressed to the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department. Since Wednesday the Government has received from the board copies of other cables that were not read by the right honorable member for North Sydney. All of them were placed before the committee as confidential documents, and the committee referred to them as such in its report, and did not disclose them to the House or to the Government. The Government is not prepared to disclose the cables for the following reason - In considering a matter of this kind, it is necessary to remember that several parties are concerned. It is not merely a concern of the Australian Common- wealth Line itself, because it must be remembered that other persons who make information available to the Line on a confidential basis are entitled to have their’ confidence respected. Business would be absolutely impossible upon any other basis. These cables contain information communicated to the Line respecting the opinions of other shipping companies in relation to freight rates and other matters. The communications were made in the course of confidential discussions between the Line and other shipping companies. At that time the Australian Commonwealth Line was, of its own volition, co-operating with the Conference Line in matters affecting freight rates. It is quite plain that not a word would have been communicated to the Line except on the understanding that the Line would keep the information confidential. Thus the Line would never have received the cables if it had not been assumed that it would observe the ordinary standards of commercial propriety. The Government is glad to say that the board fully recognized its obligations in this respect when its members and officers gave evidence before the committee. The board takes the same view to-day, as is evidenced by the telegram that I have just read. If the Government were to allow itself to be forced into making such documents public, uo business man would ever trust it again, nor1 would he trust the managers of any enterprise with which the Government was connected. The obligation to observe the ordinary standards of honour is as binding upon a government as upon an individual. In breach of these standards, some of the documents have been disclosed; but the Government definitely declines to associate itself with any action of this character, and, so long as it is responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Commonwealth, it will maintain those high -standards of honour and integrity upon which alone can confidence be based.

Mr Theodore:

– Does the Minister suggest that any member of the Opposition was guilty of making these cablegrams public?

Mr PATERSON:

– I do not; I have too much respect for the high position which honorable members of this Parliament hold to think for a moment that they” would be guilty of such an act. I have dealt with the past and present position of the Line, and I wish now for a few minutes, to deal with its outlook for the future. The Leader of the Opposition, in moving his motion, painted a gloomy picture of the exploitation to which our primary producers would, in his opinion, be liable if this Line should disappear, as a Government enterprise. I am a producer, and my view of the situation is that further freight reductions are being impeded by the retention of the Line. I believe that it is actually being used as an impediment to the granting of reduced freights. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton), in speaking to the motion, said that he looked forward to having an opportunity to discuss this subject with the apple-growers in the Prime Minister’s electorate. I wish to inform the honorable member that within the last few weeks I have addressed the apple-growers of Flinders, and when I pointed out that by adopting the proposals for an export board, which would be clothed with statutory powers to negotiate on a Commonwealth’ basis for a reduction in apple freights, they might possibly obtain better freight conditions, I was twitted with a statement that the Australian Commonwealth Line was itself an obstacle to the securing of reduced rates. The argument that was put to me was that in face- of the heavy losses that were being incurred by the operation of the Commonwealth Line, it was ridiculous and unreasonable to expect that the Conference Line would reduce its charges. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that the primary producers would welcome the disposal of the Commonwealth vessels. The shipping tonnage operating in Australian waters is increasing. Swedish, Italian, French, and other foreign tonnage, is coming here in sufficient volume to place an effective check upon the Conference Line. “When that point was mentioned, in the course of the debate a day or so ago, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) suggested that we were lacking in national pride if we could give up our Line while all these other countries had their ships in Australian waters; but the honorable member entirely overlooked the fact that none of the countries to which I have referred is operating a government-controlled line.

Mr Watkins:

– Some of them are paying heavy subsidies.

Mr PATERSON:

– Would it not be possible for the Australian Government also to do that?

Mr Watkins:

– It has not been suggested that it has any intention of doing so.

Mr PATERSON:

– It is idle to argue that these nations will combine with the Conference Line to impose unfair conditions upon the Australian people. May I remind honorable members of the statement of Abraham Lincoln -

You may fool some of the people all the time,, and all of the people some of tlie time, but not all the people all the time.

Let me paraphrase that statement in this way - it may be possible for some of these nations to combine their forces all the time; it may be possible for all of them to combine for some of the time; but it will not be possible for all of them to combine for all .the time. I am quite satisfied that the competition for our cargoes that is going on in Australian waters at present is sufficient to prevent any exploitation of our people. One point that emerges quite clearly from this debate is that we cannot leave the Australian Commonwealth Line where it is. We must make up our minds either to discontinue it or to provide additional capital, to meet working expenses, and to cover any replacements or additions that may be necessary. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) said in the course of his speech that the Line had “ turned the corner.” It certainly has turned a corner, in that in the future it will not be able to live .upon its own capital. It has been doing that for some years, but it will not be able to do so much longer. I do not say that the Line should be disposed of simply because it is incurring a loss of nearly £600,000 per annum, although that is a heavy loss. If it could be proved that the Line was conferring benefits upon” the country which more than compensated for the loss which was being sustained in conducting it, I should be quite prepared to allow it to continue. Even £1,000,000 per annum would not be too much for Australia to pay if it would save our producers and the general community from being exploited to a larger extent. I submit, however, that the Line has proved to be hopelessly ineffective, for its losses have not procured for us the freight advantages that are enjoyed by New Zealand which has not incurred such losses. I have no misgivings as to future freights. For one thing there is not the close co-operation between the Conference Line and foreign lines that the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) has suggested. For another thing we are not impotent or clay in the hands of the potter, as has been suggested. One would imagine from the statements that have been made by honorable members opposite that if we dispose of our governmentowned ships we shall immediately fall into the hands of the Inchcape interests, and will not be able to do a single thing to help ourselves. I contend that the Commonwealth Government is able to make a good bargain with the shipping interests that are seeking our trade. For instance, more than 30,000 migrants were brought to Australia last year at a. cost of about £33 per head. This is a business which private shipping companies are anxious to obtain. Then we pay certain mail subsidies, which are eagerly sought after. The subsidies that are payable in this connexion should enable us to make good terms with the shipping interests. I could say a good deal more on this subject, but I shall refrain from doing so. The majority of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, after considering the whole of the confidential information which was before it, has recommended to the Government that the Line should be sold ; and I trust that honorable members, when the opportunity is presented to them, will adopt the recommendation.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– I desire to make a personal explanation. During the speech which the Minister for Markets and Migration (Mr. Paterson) ha3 just delivered, he referred to certain confidential cablegrams which passed between the London office of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers and the head office in Sydney, and were read in this chamber within the last few days Last week I asked the Prime Minister whether he would make this information available to honorable members, but he declined to do so.- As the contents of these cablegrams were known only to the members of ( the Public Accounts Committee, the representatives of the Commonwealth Shipping Board, the Prime Minister and members of his Government, and certain officers of the Public Service, and, as I realize that my views and my report upon the Government’s shipping operations differ from those of my colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee, it might appear that I made available the contents of these cablegrams. As a member of this committee, which conducted its inquiries in camera, I would not for a moment think of making public confidential documents. They were not used in any way by me, nor made available by me to any member of Parliament, or to any other person. I court the fullest possible inquiry into this matter, and I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to accede to the request that has been made by the Shipping Board to ascertain how the leakage has occurred.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– In view of the keen debate that has occurred in the chamber during this week, I think it will be generally admitted that I was amply justified in moving my motion. -It will be remembered that, when I began the discussion, . I had nothing upon which to base my remarks other than newspaper statements to the effect that a caucus meeting of both of the parties which support the Government had discussed the proposition that -the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers should be sold. We acted without delay when that report was published, for we believe that the Line was established with the object of building up an Australian mercantile marine, and we knew that, once it was disposed of, our prospects of attaining that end would be greatly reduced, if not altogether destroyed. We were unable to couch our motion in terms other than those which appear on the notice-paper. We have been endeavouring for some time to obtain information from the Government of its intentions with respect to the Line; but the only reply we could get was that we ‘ must wait for a week or two until the Government was ready to state its proposals to the House. But, in our opinion, delay Vas dangerous. It was only after I had made my speech that the Prime Minister announced to honorable members and the country generally that the Government intended to dispose of the Line. It is now evident that the newspapers had secured substantially correct information. Most honorable members have participated in this debate, and those who are opposed to the disposal of the Line have spoken with such effect that the Government has been forced to cause practically every one of its supporters to stand up and speak in its favour, even after the Opposition forces were exhausted. It is evident, however, that their excuses have cut no ice and the Government will yet have to justify its attitude on this matter, as on many others, to the people of the country. A good deal has been said by the Minister for Markets and Migration about certain confidential information that has been divulged, and the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) has made a personal explanation on the matter. The aspect of the subject which seems to be of supreme importance, from the point of view of honorable members opposite, is that when the Prime Minister met the joint caucus of the parties which are supporting him, he did not lay all his cards on the table, and intimate to them what action he proposed to take. I ask whether that was acting fairly by those who are expected to support him? The Prime Minister himself has admitted astounding ignorance in regard to certain important phases of the subject. I submit that it was the duty of the Government to take its followers completely into its confidence on an important matter of this kind. In passing, may I observe that, although it is often said that only the Labour party has a caucus, it is clear, from what has happened here in the past few days, that not only has each of the parties supporting the Government a caucus of its own, but they have a joint caucus. That makes it definite that the Country party can no longer claim to be a separate entity. It has been swallowed by the Nationalist party.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is all very well to make such statements.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The honorable member made a protest against the sale of these ships, and yet he proposes to vote against the motion. It has been arranged that the party opposite shall vote against the motion, in spite of whatever personal opinions honorable members may hold. If the honorable member for Richmond votes for the Government on this motion, he must henceforth keep his tongue between his teeth and say nothing with regard to the position, because his statements will merely make his attitude appear all the worse in the r-yes of the country. It has been stated that the cablegrams produced by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) are confidential. They “re. I remind honorable members opposite that, the other evening, all honorable members had an opportunity to attend a confidential meeting with Mr. L. M. S. Amery, Secretary of State for the Dominions. At that meeting every honorable member had the advantage of hearing all that took place. Can a similar rem ark apply to the caucus meeting which decided upon the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers ?

Mr Prowse:

– How did the members of the Labour party become so unanimous without having seen those cables ?

Mr CHARLTON:

– The very fact of our initiating this debate brought those cables to light. But for our action, Australia would never have known of their existence, and of the arrangement between Inchcape and the Commonwealth Government for the selling of the Line. It was only after a number of speeches had been made that the right honorable member for North Sydney read the content of those cables to honorable members. I do not know how he secured them. If the Prime Minister thinks fit, he can institute an inquiry into that at a later date. When the cables were produced by the right honorable gentleman, there was general consternation on the Government side of the House. Honorable members intimated that, had the information been in their possession before, they might have acted differently.

The Minister for Markets and Migration said that, had we moved this censure motion with the information contained in those cables previously available to honorable members, we might have carried it.

Mr Bruce:

– That was not said.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That was the inference I drew from the statement of the honorable gentleman. Those cables were placed before the House by a member of the Nationalist party, who knew that a great injustice was being done. Many honorable members opposite have since wondered why the Government did not disclose’ all the information it possessed, so that they might have a fair opportunity of coming to a proper determination, and practically every one has apologized for his attitude on this motion. One honorable member opposite went so far as to assert that he intended to move an amendment. Evidently some influence was brought to bear on him, as he abandoned the idea. If the right honorable member for North Sydney was able to secure that information, it must also have been available to the Government, and should have been placed before the caucus meeting which was held in camera. Last evening the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) quoted further cables, which showed that the Prime Minister possessed certain information when I askedhim questions on the subject some time ago. On the18th March,” 1926, I asked the Prime Minister if any offer had been received for the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and he answered in the negative. Yet, on the 21st January, 1926, three months before, according to the remarks of the honorable member for Batman, a cablegram was sent by the London office to the board in Australia offering the Government £3,500,000 for the ten ships then in commission. On the 25th January, 1926, the members of the board in Australia replied that they had seen the Prime Minister, who was communicating with his Cabinet. That was before I asked my question.

Mr Bruce:

– I ask the honorable member to read the text of the cablegrams quoted by the honorable . member for Batman last night. No offer was contained in the cables which he read.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I have not the text before me. Those messages indicated that the information was already in the hands of the Government at that time. “When an honorable member asks a question to elicit information he should receive the information he seeks.

Mr Bruce:

– The information is in Hansard, in the cables quoted by the honorable member for Batman. The quotation is perfectly correct, with the -exception of the last cable, which I ask to be read. No price was quoted.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The Prime Minister is not meeting the point I am making. I asked the right honorable gentleman for information which was in his possession, and he misrepresented the case to the House. On the 28th January, 1926, a further cablegram was sent to Mr. Larkin to the effect that the Prime Minister would consider the offer so long as the price was not less than £3,500,000. On the same date a cable was sent to London on behalf of the Prime Minister, to the effect that he was of the opinion that if Cabinet accepted the offer, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the ratification of Parliament. Honorable members opposite went into caucus and decided upon a course of action without being in possession of all that essential information. It appears that the Prime Minister can dominate every honorable members opposite merely by causing him to attend a meeting and making a statement. No matter how convincing the arguments of this party, may be, honorable members opposite must’ stand by the promise they gave in caucus. I leave those facts for the consideration of honorable members.

Mr Brennan:

– The point is not so much whether, technically, there was an offer, but whether the answer of the Prime Minister was a candid and honest one.

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is the position, and it was clearly enunciated by the right honorable member for North Sydney. The Minster for Markets and Migration quoted a comparison of freights ruling in Australia and New Zealand. May I quote some New Zealand freights that the honorable gentleman omitted, and show that they are higher than those which exist in Australia, notwithstanding the fact that shipments from Australia to the United Kingdom have to be carried 100 miles further than do those from New Zealand to the United Kingdom. These comparative figures are -

That clearly shows that although the distance is 100 miles less, the freights from New Zealand are higher than from Australia. Does any honorable member imagine that the Conference Line would increase to an enormous extent its freights to New Zealand? Such an action would merely draw public attention to it. Its wish is to obtain control of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. When it has done so, the freights from New Zealand and Australia will be advanced simultaneously. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) threw a bomb- * shell into the camp of the Government, when he informed honorable members that while he was Premier of Queensland the Conference Line placed a pistol to his head and said, “ If you do not come to an agreement with us you will have to pay an additional 25 per cent, to secure the carriage of your produce.’” Similar action would be taken by the Conference in respect to every other State if its power was unfettered. Is such a condition of affairs in the best interests of the people of Australia? Should we give these people a clear field? The argument has also been advanced that the Commonwealth Line is losing money. We on this side, together with the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) and the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) have proved by documentary evidence that there has been a saving to the people of Australia amounting to millions of pounds. There is not the slightest doubt that a caucus of the Government parties was held and that full information was not placed before those who attended. They listened to the speech of the Prime Minister without sifting it, or doing other things which they should have done, in considering a big national question such as this. They decided that the line should be sold. They did not come immediately to this House and acquaint honorable members of their intentions. It was left to the Opposition to drag the admission from the Prime Minister by means of a motion of want of confidence. The public press of Australia has said that this is a frivolous motion; but the debate has developed in such a manner that the people of Australia have had shown to them the danger in which they stand, because of the action, of the Government, and their eyes will be opened. During the course of the debate, almost every honorable member on the Government side has endeavored fc-> make his position safe with his constituents. They fear in their hearts the disposal of the Line, and they wish to have the opportunity at a later date to clear themselves by a reference to the pages of Hansard. If the Line is disposed of, every citizen in this country will be affected, but none more than the primary producer. It is idle for honorable members opposite to say that we have only recently shown a solicitude for the primary producer. No party in the history of this country has stood by the primary producer to a greater extent than the Labour party. If honorable members will study the legislation of the States, they will find that most of the acts which have benefited the primary producer have been passed by Labour Governments. It ill becomes any honorable member to try to belittle the efforts of the Labour party in that direction. This is a national party. It claims that progress cannot be made unless the interests of both the primary and secondary industries are considered. To enable <hat to be done, we must have a Commonwealth Line of Steamers. If the Line is sold, the day will come when the people will demand from whatever political party is in power its reinstatement on a much more effective basis than that which exists at the present time.

Mr Bruce:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. Last night when I was absent from the chamber, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), suggested that I had replied to a question of the Leader of the Opposition in a misleading manner, and with intent to deceive the

House. Although, when I returned, the honorable member was good enough to repeat a portion of what he had said, I did not then grasp the significance of his suggestion. Having since had an opportunity to peruse the Hansard report of his remarks, I do not consider that the honorable member has sustained the charge which he suggested he was making against me; but as the Leader of the Opposition has this afternoon made a similar complaint, it is imperative thatI should give to honorable members the facts to which reference has been made. On the 18th March, 1926, the Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question : -

Has any offer been made for the purchase of the “ Bay “ Line of Steamers since the Commonwealth offered them for sale. If so, what amount was offered, and by whom ?

My reply was -

No offer has been made for the purchase of the “ Bay “ Line of Steamers.

The honorable member for Batman last night read what appeared to be confidential cablegrams exchanged between the directors . of the Australian Commonwealth Line in Sydney and their chairman in London. I have not seen those communications, and have no knowledge of them ; but they contain substantially the wording of a letter which I received from the board, and of my reply to it. The letter was dated the 23rd January, 1926, and was as follows : -

I am requested by the deputy chairman to advise you that the following telegram has been received from the chairman, Mr. Larkin, dated 21st instant, received here 22nd: -

Secret and confidential -

Convey following to Prime Minister privately and telegraph his reply as soon as possible - Begins. Have inquiry from British interests whether Commonwealth Government would consider offer about £3,500,000 for tun ships now in commission. Conditions practically as per May tender forms except possibly limitation services to our current itinerary. Inquirers are absolutely independent any ring or combine, and would undertake to remain so. If Government prepared sell underwriting assured subject only certain usual but unimportant stipulations regarding inspection ships investigation earnings, &c. Financial arrangements would necessarily occupy few weeks after receipt reply. Funds would be raised without any publicity Remind you if this last offer refused Government must be prepared ultimately face new building programme as

Line cannot stand still. If Government prepared consider, will remain London few weeks to advance negotiations.

I am requested by the board to ask if you will kindly let me have your decision to enable reply to be sent to Mr. Larkin, who is due to leave Liverpool in the T.S.S. Fordsdale on the 6th February.

On the 27th January, I replied -

With reference to the letter addressed to me on the 23rd January by Mr. Kueen embodying a telegram received from Mr. Larkin, in which reference is made to an offer to purchase the ten ships of the Australian Commonwealth Line now in commission, I desire to inform you that the Government is prepared to consider this offer on the same terms and conditions as were laid down in the conditions of tender decided upon in May, 1925, subject to the purchase price being not less than £3,500,000. The Government would, if necessary, be willing to consider some modification of clause 5 (a) of the conditions of tender mentioned, provided that such modified clause contains a satisfactory assurance that a reasonable service would be maintained between the United Kingdom and continental and Australian ports. In any event, the Government would like to receive a definite offer from the prospective purchasers setting forth precisely what they are willing to pay, and the extent of the undertaking they are prepared to give, in order that a decision might be arrived at without undue delay. It is to be clearly understood that any agreement that might be arrived at must be subject to ratification by the Commonwealth Parliament. I shall be glad if you cap have the full text of the foregoing communicated secretly to Mr. Larkin.

As the suggestion against me is that I gave to this House information, that was misleading or calculated to mislead the House, I direct the attention of honorable members to the words in the first communication, which are, “ Whether Commonwealth Government would consider offer “ ; that is, whether we would consider an offer if one were made. To that my reply was that the Government would like to receive a definite offer with respect to the purchase. Prom then until now not another word on the subject has been received. The inquiry was whether the Government would entertain an offer. There has been no offer to purchase the Line ; and when the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether an offer had been made, I replied that none had been made.

Mr Charlton:

– On the same date a further cable was sent to London on behalf of the Prime Minister, to the effect that he was of the opinion that if Cabinet accepted an offer there would be no difficulty in obtaining the ratification of Parliament

Mr Bruce:

– I have been unable to find a record of any such telegram, but if the telegram is discovered later I shall inform the honorable gentleman. The question asked in the cable, I understand, was whether, in the event of an offer being made, there would be any difficulty in securing its acceptance and having the sale effected; and I am credited with replying that so far as I knew, the Parliament would desire to sell if an offer of £3,500,000 were made. I object to the suggestion that I made a misleading answer to a question asked of me in the House. I have placed all the facts before honorable members, and I leave the matter to their judgment.

Mr Charlton:

– I rise to make a personal explanation. In view of the cabled offer mentioned by the Prime Minister, and his statement that he considered that offer, I feel bound to say that if the question I addressed to him had been put to me in similar circumstances, I would certainly have stated that I had been asked to consider a proposed offer.

Mr Brennan:

– I, too, rise to make a personal explanation. The Prime Minister has endeavoured to convey the impression - and apparently has done so to the satisfaction of some honorable members on his side - that I had made an unfounded charge against him that he had deliberately given an inaccurate answer to a plain question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In my speech last night I stated in the plainest possible terms that technically no offer had been made, but that in a cable from a responsible officer in London, inquiry had been made as to whether the Prime Minister would consider an offer, and prices and other terms were set out in detail.Further, the person conveying that offer used his position to urge, and almost coerce, the Prime Minister to accept it. I quoted further a cablegram sent by the Prime Minister, or with his authority, practically accepting in detail the terms of the proposed offer, and I declared that when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether an offer had been made, a proposed offer in detail was, in fact, before . the right honorable gentleman, who had expressed sympathy with and practically approval of every detail of it. Therefore - I said last night, and I repeat now - his answer to my leader was lacking in candour and accuracy,, and was absolutely calculated to deceive.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The House divided.

AYES: 23

NOES: 40

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1330

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report (No. 4) of the Printing Com mittee, presented by Mr. Corser, read by the Clerk, and adopted.

page 1330

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Papua Act - Infirm and Destitute Natives Account - Statement of Transactions of Trustees, 1926-27

page 1330

PROMOTION OF OFFICERS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to announce that owing to the death of the Clerk of the House the following officers in attendance in the chamber have been promoted: - Mr. Parkes to be Clerk of the House; Mr. Green, to be Clerk Assistant; Mr. Tregear, to be Second Clerk Assistant; Mr. Chubb, to be Serjeant-at-Arms.

page 1330

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business - Cattle Trucks on Oodnadatta Line.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– I move - :

That the House do now adjourn.

For the information of honorable members, I shall indicate the business of the House next week. The Income Tax Assessment Bill will be first on the noticepaper. The budget will probably be dis cussed, and also wireless. It is possible that the Electoral Bill, the Nationality Bill, and the Port Augusta to Red Hill Railway Bill, will be debated; but I donot think that there is any danger of those bills being discussed on Tuesday next.

Mr LACEY:
Grey

.- Last year I drew the atention of the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Hill) to the serious loss of cattle on the Oodnadatta and Quorn railway. I discussed the subject in this House, and I quoted the opinions of stock-owners and of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty toDumb Animals. The Minister promised that some of the trucks would be altered as an experiment to provide more ventilation for the cattle. He explained that the losses occurred in both Commonwealth trucks and South Australian trucks. I understood that some alteration has been made to the trucks; but I have just received a letter from Mr. Kempe, of Macumba Station, Oodnadatta, which proves that the losses are on Commonwealth vans and not on the State trucks, and that the losses are so great that ‘ urgent attention should be given to this matter. The letter reads as follow: -

Just a line to give you a few facts about another serious loss we had with our fat cattle through the Commonwealth cattle vans, and I would like you again to take the matter upand see if the Minister will not provide a roof on these vans to” protect our cattle from the sun. It seems terrible that we have to put up with such cruelty to our cattle as that which goes on in the hot weather on this line through no roof to protect cattle from the heat. With no ventilation the poor cattle simply smother en route. The facts are as follows: - I loaded 22 vans at Oodnadatta on the 21st September, and had sixteen red Commonwealth vans and six State vans, and all the losses were in the Commonwealth vans, as not a beast dropped down in any of the State vans. The particulars of our losses are - One died at Dutton, one at Warrina, one at Coward Springs, one at Coply, three left at Hawker, one died Quorn, six crippled and dead Terowie, seven died in paddock at Dry Creek the day after unloading through effect of sun whilst in Commonwealth vans, making a total of 21 lost out of a consignment of 185 head. I may state that the very same day as I loaded at Oodnadatta, which was a very hot day, Ted Morris, of Alice Springs, loaded 310 head of bullocks into 30 State vans, and his cattle were heavier loaded than mine, and he had no. losses or trouble en route. That speaks for itself as to which are the best vans to carry stock.

I might mention that the loss of stock in this consignment averaged £23 a head, so that the loss mentioned was £483. I have suggested before ‘that some of the boards of the cattle trucks should be taken off the sides near the top and space thus left to give more ventilation, and that roofs to the vans be provided. I ask the Minister to give this matter his serious attention.

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

– I have been continually appealed to by the stockowners to approach the Minister respecting the losses of cattle on the Oodnadatta to Quorn railway. It is amazing that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dumb Animals has not taken some action. The honorable member for Grey (Mr. Lacey) is quite wrong in suggesting Chat the lower boards of the vans should be spaced to provide ventilation, because there is a space between them now, and that makes the cattle discontented. They can see through the spaces, and they wish to get out. The Commonwealth trucks should be similar to the South Australian trucks, which are entirely enclosed to a height of about 4 feet. The cattle aro thus able to get their heads out of the trucks. The vans certainly need some ventilation, because in the summer time they are exceedingly hot. There is no roof to them, and it is absolute cruelty to transport live stock during the heat of the day under such conditions.

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · Echuca · CP

– The honorable member for Grey (Mr. Lacey) courteously mentioned the subject to me about an hour and a half ago. I immediately communicated with the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, and he has informed me that he has not yet been advised of any losses as mentioned by the honorable member. Recently I gave instructions to the Railways Commissioner to have the boards taken off the sides of half a dozen trucks so as to leave spaces for ventilation. That experiment was carried out, but the result was not satisfactory, because the cattle got their horns and legs through the sides of the trucks, and were consequently much damaged. The Commonwealth trucks, are of the same type as the Queensland trucks. I understand that the complaint has been made by Mr. Kempe, who is an employee of

Sir Sidney Kidman. Sir Sidney is one of the strongest supporters of the class of truck that we are using. During the last few weeks we have carried considerable numbers of sheep and cattle on the eastwest railway for a distance of over 1,000 miles, with practically no loss. I shall inquire into the matter, and let the honorable member know what can be done.

Question resolved .in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 3.43 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 November 1927, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1927/19271110_reps_10_116/>.