18th Parliament · 2nd Session
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. j. j. Clark) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 861
Motion (by Mr.Chifley) agreed to-
That the House,at its. rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.
page 861
– I lay on the table the following paper : -
Commonwealth Grants Commission Act - Report of the Commonwealth Grant Commission on applications made by the States of South Australia and Tasmania for further financial assistance in 1948-40 from the Commonwealth under section 96 of the Constitution.
The Government proposes to adopt the Commission’s recommendations, and the necessary legislation will be introduced at an early date.
page 861
– I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development to the shortage in South Australia of water supply fittings, including taps, which are required for housing projects. South Australian manufacturers are making a number of brass taps, but supplies are not available to the people of that State. The reason is that, under the price-fixing regulations, higher prices are allowed in Victoria and certain other States for caps, and, consequently, the South Australian article is sent interstate for sale.’ Can the Minister inform me whether anr action can be taken to ensure that master plumbers and other persons in South Australia, who require these water supply fittings, shall be able to obtain them?
– I do not think that there is any way in which the Commonwealth can assist in the matter that the honorable member has raised. Since the referendum on the control of rents and prices, the States are responsible for the administration of prices control, and the Commonwealth is unable to fix prices in such a way as to ensure that at least fair quantities of water supply fittings shall be available, in South Australia. As to whether a direction should be issued to South Australian manufacturers to reserve a certain percentage - of their output for use in that State, the position is that the Commonwealth has no control of water supply fittings made of brass, but until recently it endeavoured to control steel products. Again, because the defence power is no longer valid for that particular purpose, the Commonwealth cannot interfere with the existing position and promulgate new regulations relating to the allocation of supplies of that kind. Therefore, I cannot see that the Commonwealth is able to assist in the matter in my way.
page 862
– The Prime Minister is reported to have told the annual conference of the New South Wales branch of the . Australian Labour party at the week-end - that the coal-miners would be guilty of base ingratitude if they decided to strike on Thursday, and thus deprive fellow citizens of urgently needed coal. Will the right honorable gentleman take the logical step and follow the example of the British Minister for Labour by telling the miners that those who support the threatened strike will allow themselves to bo used as the dupes of the Communists, by ‘allowing them to take control of the affairs of their union out of the hands of Australian trade unionists? la the light, of the right honorable gentleman’s ea8t1 gation of the miners, what will the Government do if the threatened strike takes place?
– I have no need to recapitulate ell that I said on Sunday about coal.
– What is the Government going to do?
– The honorable member can answer his own questions if he interrupts as soon as I start to speak. If the honorable member desires to know what I said, I shall arrange for a cop; of my speech to be forwarded to him. The threatened stoppage is a matter for the Coal Industry Tribunal, Mr. J. H. Gallagher. I understand that he hat already taken certain action. A meeting of the coal mining unions council was held this morning. The members of the council were to have met the Coal Industry Tribunal at 2.30 p.m. to-day, but I have been informed that a postponement of the meeting has been requested. Nothing would be gained if 1 made statements about the matter while conferences are pending.
page 862
Listeners’ - Licences - Electoral and Religious Broadcasts - Parliamentary Proceedings
– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General how many wireless listeners’ licences were issued in 1938-39 and in 1948-49 ? What is the difference between the number of licences issued in those two years and by what percentage does the figure for 1948-49 exceed that for 1938-39?
– In 1938-39, 1,129,786 -wireless listeners’ licences were issued and in 1948-49, 1,913,172 were issued. That is an increase of 783,386 or 66f per cent.
– Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral inform the Parliament of the conditions and rules that are likely to govern broadcasts’ ‘ of a controversial nature during the next federal general election campaign? Will the regulations apply equally to broadcasting- stations operated bv the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial networks? Did a meeting of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board take place last week? If it did, can the Minister give an indication of the nature of its deliberations regarding religious and electioneering broadcasts ?
– The Australian Broadcasting Control Board meets regularly. As a matter of fact, like the French parliament during the years of the French revolution from 1789 onwards, it is in constant session. It is considering the matter to which the honorable member has referred, and quite a number of other matters as well. In due course, it will report to the PostmasterGeneral upon them. If the PostmasterGeneral considers it necessary to make any submissions to Cabinet, he will do so. The honorable member can rest assured that in regard to political, religious and controversial broadcasts generally the board and the Government will, as usual, deal out even-handed justice.
– Will the Minister report to the Parliament?
– I regret that I did not answer that portion of the honorable member’s question. I shall have inquiries made on that matter and inform the honorable member of the result.
– I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you will have prepared for the information of honorable members a statement showing the total amount of time that has been occupied by each member of the House in speeches that have been broadcast from the Parliament during what has been referred to as the “ prima donna “ period from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.?
– I shall look into the matter and reply to the honorable gentleman at an early date.
page 863
Supplies of Bore Casing and Fencing Wire - Administration - Appointment of Director
– Last week the Minister for the Interior said that it was impossible to allocate supplies of bore casing and fencing wire to the Northern Territory because the referendum proposal* had been turned down. In view of the fact that the Constitution debars the Northern Territory from any say in referendums, can the Attorney-General assure the Minister for the Interior that, because the Australian Government controls every activity in the Northern Territory, it has power to allocate materials to the territory?
– I shall discuss that question with the Minister for the Interior and see whether he and I are in agreement with the honorable member for the Northern Territory.
– As the suggestion that [ made in this House last year urging that a new portfolio, termed “ Minister for the Northern Territory”, should be created has been supported by an active member of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory, Mr. Nelson, has been given wide publicity and has found general acceptance in the Northern Territory, will the Prime Minister create a new portfolio in order to overcome the chaos that exists at present in the administration of the Northern Territory? If not, will the right honorable gentleman concentrate under the administration of the present Minister for the Interior all matters that appertain to that territory, so that the policy and directions given to the Administrator shall be properly coordinated ?
– Although the honorable member for the Northern Territory and certain private bodies have, 3 understand, previously made such a suggestion, I have not yet been able to ascertain what advantage would accrue to the residents of the Northern Territory by the creation of a special portfolio, “ Minister for the Northern Territory “. In any event, I point out to the honorable member that the allocation of ministerial duties is a matter for the Prime Minister, who does not, of course, make a point of telling people in advance what he proposes to do in such matters. However, I am examining the honorable member’s suggestion that the administration of the Northern Territory should be coordinated under one Minister, and I shall give full consideration to that suggestion and to other proposals that have been made concerning the Northern Territory.
– A few weeks ago, the Department of the - Interior inserted in the press an advertisement inviting applications for the position of Director of the Northern Territory. “Will the Minister for the Interior inform me whether that position has been filled ? If it has not, can he inform the House when that senior appointment will be made, so that chaotic conditions in the Northern Territory may be adjusted?
– The position of Director of the Northern Territory has not yet been filled. At the moment the applications are with the Public Service Board.
page 864
Tasmanian Shipping Delays
– In view of the fact that between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000 super, feet of exportable timber is awaiting shipment on Tasmanian wharfs mainly because of the difficulty of obtaining sufficient shipping space and also because Tasmanian shippers are losing valuable Victorian and South Australian markets as a result of shipping delays and irregularity of shipping. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel investigate the possibility of diverting two or three overseas vessels to northern Tasmanian ports from time to time during the year, after they have unloaded their cargoes in Western Australian or South Australian ports? That would help to ease the position in Tasmania.
– I am aware that quantities of timber are awaiting shipment from Tasmania to the mainland but I do not think that shipping delays will result in Tasmanian merchants losing their markets on the mainland. The demand for timber is now, and will be for a long time, very strong. It would probably be difficult to arrange for overseas vessels to call at Tasmanian ports to load timber before calling at ports on the mainland. I shall bring the whole matter to the attention of the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and ask whether there is anything that can be done by the Australian Government to relieve the situation to which the honorable gentleman has referred.
page 864
– I direct the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to the fact that official trade figures show that Australian shipments of butter and beef to the United Kingdom during the last ten months were 15,668,700 lb. and 26,285,300 lb. respectively lower than the corresponding figures for last year. Will the honorable gentleman state the reason for that decrease? Does Britain now need meat, butter and fats more urgently than any other food product? Has the Government taken any steps to secure an immediate increase of exports of butter and meat to the United Kingdom?
– It would take a considerable time to answer the question fully. One reason for the decrease of the quantity of meat exported to the United Kingdom is that seasonal conditions have been very favorable and producers have shown a strong tendency to hold their stock. Later the export of meat will be accelerated. With regard to butter production, the Australian Government has instituted guaranteed prices for producers of dairy products and has negotiated a seven-year contract with the United Kingdom at handsome prices. Every possible incentive to increase production has been given to the dairy-farmers of this country. It is hoped that as dairy herds increase, the production of butter will also increase, lt must be remembered that the population of this, country is now considerably larger than it was before, and that there has been a considerable increase of the quantity of dairy products that is consumed in Australia. If the honorable gentleman examines the figures showing the overall production of whole milk, including milk used for making butter, he will find that there has been practically no decrease. As an illustration, the consumption of milk in Sydney and Newcastle has increased from 28,000,000 gallons annually before the war to 54,000,000 gallons annually. It must be obvious that, if consumption has increased in all big cities at that rate, we cannot expect to export the same amount of butter as we exported previously.
page 865
– In view of the very favorable season for oat-growing and the outstanding success of the oat pool, will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture discuss with State Premiers or Ministers for Agriculture the possibility of establishing another oat pool to handle the forthcoming crop?
– No good purpose would be served by my discussing with the State Governments the establishment of oat pools.. Under its war-time powers, the Commonwealth conducted oat pools and provided guaranteed prices for oats for several years. However, with the disappearance of those war-time powers, it is not constitutionally possible for the Government to conduct oat pools now unless the respective State Parliaments enact complementary legislation. This matter was discussed at a recent meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, but the representatives of the States did not show any enthusiasm about the proposal to arrange Commonwealth pools validated by State legislation. In those circumstances, it would be quite outside the jurisdiction and competence of the Commonwealth to conduct pools for oatgrowers. If the States see fit to raise the matter again and are prepared to enact complementary legislation on lines similar to that which authorizes the wheat scheme, favorable consideration will be given to helping oat-growers by the operation of pools.
page 865
-^ ask the Treasurer whether the Government intends to increase the rate of age and invalid pensions. If so, will the increase be between 3s. and 5s. a week, as suggested in the press, or will the Government ensure that the new rate shall have some practical relation to the cost of living?/
-No considerratior/ has been given to a further increase of pension rates. The Government considered this subject not long ago and made a general increase, and it is unlikely that a further increase will be considered so soon after that. The law provided at one time that pension rates must be related to the cost of living and must rise or fall according to variations of the cost of living index figures. However, when “ C “ series index figures fell about three years ago, there was a great protest against any reduction of pensions. As a result, the provision that related pensions to the cost of living was removed from the law. Therefore, the pension rates are not now affected by the cost of living. S
page 865
– Has the attention of the Minister for External Affairs been drawn to a report in the press to-day of a statement by General Douglas MacArthur concerning the attitude of Russia towards Japan? Is the Minister prepared to tell the House whether he agrees or disagrees with the statement?
– I propose to deal with the question of Japan, as well as the matter to which the honorable member has referred, in a comprehensive statement on international relations generally that I propose to give to the House in the near future, subject to the permission of the House and to arrangements made by the Prime Minister.
page 865
– I ask the Minister for Works and Housing whether it is true, as reported in the press, that the Australian Government intends to import 1,000 prefabricated houses, and, if so, on what basis the houses will be allocated among the States? Does the Minister intend to have prefabricated houses allocated for workers employed on the Snowy Mountains - scheme ?
– The Government has not decided to import a specific number of prefabricated houses. It has, however, decided to examine the requirements of houses for people whom the Commonwealth is constitutionally permitted to house. I refer to houses required near defence establishments and also for the accommodation of certain postal employees. The Government hopes, after examining the housing requirements, to give consideration to an order for prefabricated houses that will meet a considerable proportion of the demand.
Imported prefabricated houses will cost more than houses built in the orthodox manner, and therefore I consider that the Government, by importing them, will be making a generous contribution to the solution of Australia’s housing difficulties. The Government will consider the use of some prefabricated houses in connexion with the Snowy Mountains scheme. At present it is intended that some of a large number of quonset huts that were brought to Sydney from Manus Island will be used to house people employed on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Those huts can be made into very fine accommodation, each being transformable into a house of from 14 to 16 squares. Such houses will be well insulated and will make first-class dwellings.
page 866
– Has the Prime Minister seen the statement, reported to have been made by Acting Chief Judge Kelly in the Arbitration Court last week, that trade unions might be well advised to defer claims for higher wages until the Commonwealth’s powers to control prices had been established by means of a referendum? Does that statement mean that the Government is contemplating another referendum on prices control?
– I did not see the statement to which the honorable member has referred, but I can assure him that the Government is not contemplating another referendum on prices control or, indeed, on any other subject.
page 866
Prize-money : Participants - Conditions of Former Royal Navy Personnel - Medical Officers.
– Early in the present session I asked the Minister for Defence if he could give me any details concerning the allocation of a sum of £4,000,000 prize-money, in the sharing of which Australian Naval and Air Force personnel are entitled to participate. I have not yet had any information on that subject from the honorable gentleman. Can he now tell me : Who are eligible to participate in thesharingoftheprize-money ; where eligiblepersonsshouldapply;and whether there are any application forms to be used in connexion with such applications ? I should also like the honorable gentleman to give me any other details that would enable me to give full information to a number of people who have written to me regarding this matter.
– It is true that there is an amount of prize-money available for distribution among certain Australians who served in the recent war. Unlike what happened after World War I., the Royal Australian Air Force will participate in the prize-money to which I have referred. The matter is still under consideration and I shall make a statement on it when I am in the position to do so.
– What categories of Royal Australian Air Force personnel will be paid prize-money?
– I am not in a position at present to give that information. The matter is being examined by an inter-departmental committee on which both the Air Force and the Navy art represented. Until that committee hat made its recommendations, I shall not be able to say what categories of men will receive prize-money.
– I address a question to the Minister for the Navy relating to Royal Navy personnel who have been enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy. Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom ex-Servicemen’s Combined Committee has sent a petition to His Majesty the King complaining that a large majority of married Royal Navy personnel who have transferred to the Royal Australian Navy are separated from their wives and families and are likely to remain so for a long time? What undertakings were given to these men who enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy in Great Britain that their wives and families would be enabled to join them? What arrangements have been made, if any, for housing the wives and families of such men ? How many ex-Royal Navy personnel who have enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy have been housed? Is temporary accommodation being used to house the wives and families of any of these men? How many men have been forced to desert because they have been unable to obtain housing in Australia?
– The question that the honorable member has asked involves quite a number of points. I shall have inquiries made, and let the honorable member have the information that he seeks.
Air. BEALE. - At the end of hostilities some medical officers who enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy for the duration of the war were retained against their will on the pretext that the war was not over. Will the Minister for the Navy Inform me whether any such men are still serving in the Royal Australian Navy, and, if so, when it is proposed to release them ? “Mr. RIORDAN. - I shall make inquiries and let the honorable member know the result.
page 867
– Did the Minister for External Affairs, at any time during his trips abroad, express himself as being in favour of a relaxation of Australia’s immigration laws to a degree that would allow the entry to this country of Asiatic migrants? Is the Minister in favour of a quota of Asiatic migrants being allowed into Australia?
– Order I i. think that the honorable member is asking the Minister to express an opinion on. a matter of policy. However, the Minister may answer the first part of the question.
– In answer to the first part of the honorable member’s question, I have not expressed any such opinion as he suggests. I have never discussed the matter at any time in any place; it was never a part of my duty to do so. I cannot understand how any such report has reached Australia. The second part of the question is covered by the answer w the first part.
page 867
– Has the Minister for Defence seen press statements and photographs relative to a large gambling school that is being conducted at the guided weapons testing range in South Australia? It is said that many men. including displaced persons, who do not know much about the game are losing a great deal of money at the school. It is further suggested that those who object to the existence of this Tambling school and draw the attention of the authorities to what is going on are either assaulted or dismissed and have no possibility of continuing to work at the range. Will the Minister have inquiries made into the report?
– I have not seen any press statements or photographs about this matter. The guided weapons testing range is administered by the Minister for Supply and Development. I shall ask my colleague to investigate the matter and furnish me with a report upon it.
page 867
– Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government has asked Mr. Hector McNeill. British Minister of State, to visit Australia this year? If so, is the purpose of his visit to discuss with the Australian Government a regional defence pact, or British Commonwealth defence generally?
– No specific invitation has been extended to Mr. McNeill to visit Australia. He was out here some time ago in connexion with the Pacific Conference. Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has been informed on a number of occasions that any Minister of the United Kingdom Government, or any leading member of the Opposition who wished to visit Australia for the purpose of studying Australian conditions at first-hand would he welcome. When Mr. Anthony Eden, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom Parliament, came to Australia he was made a guest of the Australian Government, and so that he might have every opportunity to study conditions in this country certain facilities were provided for him. Arrangements were made for people able to supply him with the best information to travel with him;
page 868
Increased Freight Rates
– Will the Treasurer inform the House whether preliminary Treasury estimates show that shipping operated by the Australian Shipping Board will lose nearly £8,000,000 in the current financial year? Is it also a fact that interstate freight rates were increased by 15s. a ton last Tuesday? If so, will the general freight rate between Melbourne and Sydney be 82s. a ton, compared with 27s. a ton in 1939? Did the Australian Shipping Board press for this latest heavy increase in order to cover its operating losses, or was it the result of a decision by the private shipping companies? If the increase was urged by the private shipping companies, can the right honorable gentleman confirm the statement of the Steamship Owners Federation that wage increases, slow turn-round of ships, and labour disputes were the factors principally responsible for it? Was the Government consulted by the Australian Shipping Board before the increase was made, and did the board present a report to the Government recommending the increase? If so, will such report be made available for perusal by honorable members ?
– I have not seen an estimate of the loss incurred by the Australian Shipping Board, but I have been informed by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel that there will be a loss. The private shipowners also complain that they have been losing money. Freight rates have been discussed by the representatives of the private shipowners and the Australian Shipping Board. I received a deputation from the private shipowners which asked, not that the Government agree to their increasing freight rates - they can do that if they like, and the Commonwealth has no power to prevent them - but that, if they increased rates by 15s. a ton, the Commonwealth shipping line should do the same. They claimed that they were losing heavily on existing rates. I do not remember that they gave reasons for the losses, but I think reference was made to increasing casts. The request was referred to the Minister for Shipping and
Fuel, who asked that the figures be examined. Finally, he agreed that the Australian Shipping Board should increase rates by 15s. a ton. The increase could be made only with the approval of the Minister, and that is why the representatives of the private shipping companies waited on me. Now, the private shipping companies and the Australian Shipping Board are in precisely the same position in regard to freight rates.
page 868
New Township of Lae
– When I was in Lae eighteen months ago, I was shown a plan of the proposed new town which was to be situated in a certain district fronting the beach, and every one concerned believed that that plan was to be followed. Can the Minister acting for the Minister for External Territories say whether that plan, after having been exhibited for so long, has now been scrapped in favour of a new proposal to build a town about a mile away from the position marked in the first plan? What has been done to meet the convenience and wishes of residents, and to ensure that they will be satisfactorily accommodated under the new proposals ?
– When the original surveys and plans for the new township of Lae were prepared it was not realized that so much land would be lost to the sea because of the falling away of the beach. For some time it has been understood that the new township be constructed on higher lands. A fresh plan was prepared when it was decided that it would be unwise to build on the former township area. The new plan was approved some time ago, and individuals who desired to acquire areas for the erection of hotels and premises in the business section of Lae have been aware of that decision for some time. I do not believe that loss has been sustained by any of the citizens of Lae, who have been well aware of the circumstances which necessitated the utilization of the higher reaches of the area. When I was at Lae about six months ago I spoke to several business people, and they were quite satisfied-
– Did the Minister speak to any of the church representatives?
– Yes, I spoke to them also.
page 869
– Can the Minister for External Affairs say whether the difficulties experienced by British vessels which have attempted to pass through the Suez Canal, whose cargoes have been seized, have been brought to his notice? In view of the implications of the incidents to which I refer, can the right honorable gentleman say whether the Australian Government is taking any stand in the matter?
– -Although I have received general information concerning the matter to which the honorable gentleman has referred, I have not received any detailed information. I shall inquire into the matter and give the honorable gentleman a full answer in due course.
page 869
– The Minister for Repatriation recently promised a nonparty deputation of double amputees and paralysed ex-servicemen, which was introduced by myself and the honorable member for Parkes, that he would give sympathetic consideration to their request for the provision of speciallyfitted motor cars for crippled exservicemen. The case made by the members of the deputation, which was based on their ora experience, proved that the provision of specially fitted motor cars would restore crippled ex-servicemen to the production line, and would enable the Government to recoup the expenditure involved in the supply of the vehicles from the taxes that would be paid by crippled ex-servicemen from the income they would be enabled to earn. In view of the fact that certain English-speaking countries have already provided similar assistance to maimed and paraplegic ex-servicemen, can the Minister say whether the Government has yet made a decision on the matter? If so, does it propose to provide specially-fitted motor cars for the unfortunate men concerned?
– I am still examining the matters raised- by the honorable member and the honorable member for Parkes when they introduced to me a deputation of limbless ex-servicemen a few weeks ago. I am also examining the flood of applications which I have since received from other ex-servicemen, who have not suffered the loss of a limb, but are paralysed or suffer from wounds which make it difficult for them to get about. These applications arose out of the matters presented by the deputation of limbless ex-servicemen. All of these applications must be considered before a decision can be made.
– How many limbless exservicemen are involved?
– They number some hundreds. ‘ The whole subject is being examined in the light of what is considered appropriate for all disabled exservicemen, so that no further anomalies may be created in the administration of the repatriation legislation.
page 869
– I address a question to the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction in his capacity as Minister administering the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I have received a report from the Shire of Flinders that a weed, known as onion grass, is extending very rapidly in the Mornington Peninsula and is causing considerable loss of pasture lands. I cannot give the honorable gentleman the botanical name of this weed, but I am sure it is known to him and to his officers. Will the Minister refer the matter to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization with a view to having investigations made of means for eradicating the weed?
– I have received a number of letters on this subject from municipalities throughout Victoria. I know that the spread of onion weed is causing great concern to many municipal authorities. I point out to the honorable member, however, that the control of noxious weeds generally is the responsibility of the State governments. Wherever possible the Australian Government assists the States in these matters by research and by co-ordinating the activities of the States with those of the Commonwealth. There is established in each
State a committee - I think it is called a weed eradication committee - on which the Commonwealth, through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and the States, are represented. Although I shall draw the attention of the organization to the problem caused by thi. ‘…A I am sure that when I make in- quiries I shall ascertain that it has already dealt with the subject and that whatever steps it can take to assist in the eradication of the weed have already been taken.
page 870
– I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the report that the Government has decided to abolish the Stevedoring Industry Commission and replace it with a stevedoring industry board. Can the honorable gentleman inform the Howe what difference in substance there will be between the commission and the proposed board? fs the change being made to enable Messrs. Healy and Roach, who were forbidden to remain as members of the commission, to appear before the board as advocates for the union that they represent? Has the Government considered putting the stevedoring industry on the same footing as other industries in the Commonwealth, by placing its industrial affairs under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court?
– Naturally, I am not able to give all the details of the proposed legislation. I can inform the honorable member, however, that the Government has decided to abolish the Stevedoring Industry Commission in’ its present form, and to establish a shipping board - I do not know exactly what name it will be given by the legal authorities - on which there will be no representation of employers or employees. The board will be composed of men selected for their capacity to carry on certain administrative work previously done by the Stevedoring Industry Commission. It will have no arbitral jurisdiction over such matters as rates of pay. As the honorable member is aware, the Stevedoring Industry Commission has administered other matters, such as appearance money and leave. Those will be placed under the control of the new board, members of which, as 1 have said, will be selected for their capacity for that type of work. In addition to that, there will be an industrial tribunal similar to the Coal Industry Tribunal, Mr. Gallagher, to deal with the conditions of waterside workers. The industrial tribunal that will cover the stevedoring industry will be a judge of the Arbitration Court.
page 870
– In view of the recent decisions of the High Court regarding the validity of the regulation* governing petrol rationing, and certain other regulations, will the Prime Minister inform me whether the Government has sought advice from its legal officers about the validity of the control of capital issues? If the Government has not sought such advice on the matter, will it do so? Will the Prime Minister also give an assurance that the Government will not seek to retain any regulations after its advisers have expressed the opinion that they are no longer valid?
– As the Leader of the Government, I naturally shall not indicate the kind of advice that is tendered by the Attorney-General’s Department on various laws, or, indeed, the advice that the Government may obtain from private legal practitioners. From time to time, I have noticed a wide difference of opinion among legal men about the validity or invalidity of particular regulations. Last year, I was informed by a certain legal man that the High Court was bound to declare invalid the regulations imposing the ban on the sale of cream. However, the High Court upheld those regulations. On several occasions, legal men have told me that the High Court was bound to uphold certain regulations, but, subsequently, the High Court declared them invalid.
– The Prime Minister should change his Attorney-General.
– I am not speaking of the Attorney-General at all. I recall that the Leader of the Opposition, who is a distinguished member of the legal profession, once expressed doubts about the validity of the laws relating to the uniform income tax, but the High Court upheld them.
– I made the mistake of relying for my opinion on a judgment of Mr. Justice Evatt.
– I wish that the Leader ofthe Opposition would always do that.
– The advice that the Government obtains on various matters, sometimes from the Attorney-General’s department and sometimes from private legal practitioners, is submitted to the Attorney-General or the Acting AttorneyGeneral, who, in his judgment, advises the Government ofthe wise course to adopt. At themoment, I am not referring to any particular case or regulation. The Leader of the Opposition was the Attorney-General in the Lyons Government, which, in 1935, appointed the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems. A few years before the outbreak of World War II. that commission considered that an authority to deal with capital issues should function in Australia for the protection of the public. When legal advice is received about a law, the Attorney-General, or, in his absence, the Acting AttorneyGeneral, Cabinet, or the Minister concerned weighs and analyses it. I am not able to give to the honorable member for Indi any indication-
– I asked the Prime Minister whether the Government had obtained advice from its legal officers about the validity of the regulations governing the control of capital issues.
– I shall not answer even that question.
page 871
In committee: Consideration resumed from the 10th June (vide page 860).
Schedule.
Proposed vote - Department of Supply and Development, £573,160 - agreed to.
Department of Shipping and Fuel.
Proposed vote, £725,950.
.- On the18th May, I asked a question relating to the number and the speed of ships that transport coal from Newcastle to South Australia. The Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) gave a full reply, but I hope that the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman), who represents him in this chamber, will ask him to impress upon the Combined Traffic Committee, which allots vessels to the coal trade, the urgent need to ensure that only the fastest ships are allocated to the long journey from Newcastle to South Australia. Frequently, the industrial and domestic life of that State is disrupted because the class of steamer that has been carrying coal there has been too slow. Had a fast ship been made available for the voyage, the inconvenience would have been averted. I hope that the Combined Traffic Committee will allocate faster steamers to that trade in future.
.- In no other field of government control and activity does the method and experience of socialism show up so badly as it does in the Government’s record of the control of shipping and waterfront activities in recent years. The people of Australia should thoroughly examine that illustration for some indication of what our future experience is likely to be under a socialist programme. At question time to-day, I indicated some facte which have led me to the conclusion that control of shipping activities by governments in Australia has brought results which amount to a national scandal. There can be no worse advertisement for socialist enterprise than the history of government control of shipping in recent years. No matter how we examine the problem, the record is black. An examination of the efficiency of the shipping services, the speed with which cargoes are unloaded or loaded, the industrial record on the waterfront, and freight charges discloses a serious drift from bad to worse. The more controls that are imposed, the more impossible the situation becomes. I shall cite a few illustrations of what I have in mind when. I make those charges. Let us consider freight rates. Costs have risen throughout Australia since the beginning of the war and it is natural that shipping charges should have increased also, but it would be difficult to turn to any other field of industrial activity and find increased charges equal to the increase of shipping charges. Whereas the freight rate between Melbourne and Sydney was 27s. a ton- in 1939, it has now, as the result of the latest increase that has been adopted by the Australian Shipping Board and the private shipping companies, jumped to 82s. a ton, which is more than three times the pre-war rate. That, in itself, is serious, for it has an important bearing on living costs and upon the goods that can be supplied from one State to another. It has an important influence on relieving the shortages that press so acutely upon industries and consumers in Australia. I illustrate what the increased shipping charges have meant in Victoria. A report issued at the week-end by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce reveals that the volume of interstate cargo handled through Victorian ports in 1947-48 was 526,000 tons less than in 1938-39. We are constantly told by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) about the level of prosperity in Australia. Yet we find that, far from increasing, the volume of freight passing from Victoria, one of the most important industrial States of Australia, to other States declined from 3,657,000 tons in 1938-39 to 3,131,000 tons in 1947-48. In 1947-48, 112,000 tons less coal was handled in Victorian ports than in the pre-war years. I have merely given an illustration of the traffic between Melbourne and Sydney. Freights between other ports have increased sensationally, too. The volume of cargo handled has declined seriously. This is not because of fewer ships being available. As the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McBride) stated in a speech earlier in this sessional period, the tonnage available to shift cargoes interstate is more than 40 per cent, greater than it was before the war. Yet ships are shifting about 1 per cent, less cargo than they were then. On the one hand, we have increased freights and more ships to handle the :argo, and on the other band a declining volume of cargo handled. The Government has sought to improve the shipping position in various ways, but it has looked primarily to the method of government control and government direction in order to bring about the improvement. The Stevedoring Industry Commission, -which was to have brought peace to the waterfront and improve the conditions of the waterside workers, has not had the desired results. In the three-year period from 1937 to 1939, the average discharging rate was 804 tons a day, but, in the three-year period from 1945 to 1947, the average discharging rate was only 355 tons a day.
– A ship or a gang?
– That is the average discharging rate per vessel throughout Australia. What has been the effect of the Stevedoring Industry Commission? Has it brought industrial peace to the waterfront? Has it brought about more consistent work on the waterfront? No! The Government is so dissatisfied with the way in which it has operated that we were told to-day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) that it intends to bring down legislation to abolish the commission and set up another authority, which, it is hoped, will have a better result. Let me give another illustration of what we can expect from socialized enterprises and of the evils associated with socialism. Admittedly, work on the waterfront has not been satisfactory. The domination exercised by the Communist leaders of the Waterside Workers Federation so accentuated these difficulties that the Government, at last, was goaded into expelling from the Stevedoring Industry Commission Mr. Healy and Mr. Roach, who were the two representatives of the federation. But curiously the Government has given to them and to the federation a monopoly of employment on the waterfront. It is remarkable that the Government, which professes opposition to monopolies and the evils associated with monopolies, has placed that union, which, on its own admission, is dominated by Communists, in the position of monopolizing employment on the waterfront. From time to time, when it is decided that more waterside workers are needed, the Government turns to the Waterside Workers Federation and says that 300 or 500 more men, as the case may he, are needed. The federation then opens its membership hooks and accepts as members the necessary additional waterside workers. The “retting” is done not by the Government or its representatives, the port committees, which might usefully be employed for that purpose, but by the Communist-dominated Waterside Workers Federation. Therefore, unless a man in the port of Sydney is approved by Mr. Healy and his colleagues, he cannot become a waterside worker. That is a most remarkable state of affairs. Is that what the Australian people intended when they gave the Government the powers that it exercises? Was it intended, for example, that a man who wants to work on the waterfront can be prohibited from doing so by the Waterside Workers Federation because he is not acceptable to it, or because his political views and philosophy do not accord with those of Comrade Healy and his associates? Is that what the people of Australia stand for? I assure the Government that that is what is happening. The appropriate course in engaging waterside workers would be for the Government to call for applications and make the selection. It may be that, under the legislation, preference in employment is given to members of the Waterside Workers Federation and that, once a man has been selected for employment’ on the waterfront, he should be told that the federation attends to waterfront employment matters and that it is desirable for him to become a member cf it. It is, however, most improper that a trade union should have the right to select the men who are to be engaged in an industry and to refuse to admit to that industry persons that it regards as being unacceptable.
The people of Australia are paying for the losses that have been and are being incurred by the Australian Shipping Board, which is one of the most costly of our socialistic enterprises. The accumulated operating losses of the board during the three financial years 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 were approximately £11,000,000. According to press reports, preliminary estimates reveal that the loss for the current financial year is likely to be approximately £8,000,000, despite the fact that freight charges have been increased. In answer to a question addressed to him thi3 afternoon, the Prime Minister said that the chipping companies had pressed him to allow the Australian Shipping Board to increase its freight charges by 15s. a ton if they increased their charges by the same amount. If the board has incurred a loss of £8,000,000 during this year, it is safe to assume that it would have been forced to increase its charges in any event. The committee should be told whether the increase of 15s. a ton will be sufficient to cover the operating losses that are now being incurred by the board. The disastrous results to which I have referred are attributable in part, if not entirely, to the governmental control that has been exercised over shipping operations by the Australian Shipping Board and by the operations of the Maritime Industry Commission and the Stevedoring Industry Commission, which determine conditions of work and rates of pay for seamen and waterside workers. No satisfactory explanation has been given of the removal of the maritime industry and the stevedoring industry from the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. Those industries may have special problems, but many other industries also have special problems. No two industries are alike, but that fact has not prevented the Arbitration Court from dealing successfully with a variety of industries.
– Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr. THOMPSON” (Hindmarsh) [4.13”j. - The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has asked why the waterside workers do not come within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. If the honorable gentleman had studied the history of the stevedoring industry, he would appreciate the reason why they do not. When the Arbitration Court was responsible for the stevedoring industry, the claims of the waterside workers received little consideration. I am refering not so much to rates of pay and margins for skill as to working conditions. In those days the private employers, whether they were shipping companies which did their own stevedoring work or stevedoring companies, did practically nothing to provide the men with an incentive to give the best possible return for the money that they were paid. The rates of wages were fixed by the
Arbitration Court, but nothing was done to improve conditions on the waterfront.
– The honorable gentleman is doubtless referring to such matters as picking-up places and accommodation for the men while waiting to be picked np?
– -I am not referring mainly to conditions at picking-up places, although they were bad enough. [ have some knowledge of the conditions that prevailed in Port Adelaide. Before the waterside workers there erected their own hall in which they could take shelter while waiting, the two picking- up places were on the footpaths outside the Customs House and the Wharf Hotel. The men had to wait at those places in all kinds of weather. No provision was made for a proper picking-up place, and finally the men provided omthemselves. At one time, when the waterside workers in Port Adelaide knocked off at 12 noon for their midday meal, the doors of the sheds in which cargo is kept were locked, and the tally Jerks went away. Many of the wharfs were a considerable distance from the nearest eating house. The men who were working on the ships at those wharfs had either to make arrangements to have their meal brought to them at the wharf or to take it with them when they left home in the morning. At midday they had to find a. place in which to shelter from the wind or the rain while they vere eating. Nothing was done for them by the shipping companies or the stevedoring companies. Now that the Stevedoring Industry Act is in operation and port committees have been established, cafeterias have been provided in which r.he men can obtain a reasonable meal and enjoy some of the amenities that are available to employees in other industries. It would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire to bring the industry again within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. I agree with the honorable member for Fawkner that we are not getting all that we should get in return for what has been done for the waterside workers, but if we abandon the present system, under which the men take part in the control of the industry, and institute a system under which decisions will be made by a judge of the
Arbitration Court, conditions will be created that will cause further strife in the industry.
The honorable member for Fawkner has referred to the increase of freight rates that are charged by shipping companies and has suggested that the increase is due to a reduction of the amount of cargo that is handled by each waterside worker. I admit that the man-hour quantity of cargo handled has fallen considerably since the war, but the samething is true of all other industries. The waterside worker is no worse off than theother fellow.
– The honorable gentleman means that we are worse off.
– I should say that the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) now receives considerably more money for less work than he did before the war, although I do not know what the honorable gentleman gets now and what he received then. That is common to most people, and does not apply only to waterside workers. I do not know whether the honorable member for Fawkner had any experience of the stevedoring industry in the “good old days “ of which he speaks, when the industry came within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court and when there was no guarantee that a man would get a fair share of the work that was available. I do not know whether the honorable gentleman has ever heard of what were called the “ bull gangs “. That term was a very apt one. In the “good old days “ there were more men than jobs. No appearance money was paid. If a man wanted to keep his job he had to maintain, if he could, the pace that was set by the hull gang. The average output of a hull gang was usually much above the average output of the same number of men working at normal pressure. The men knew that, when work was scarce, only those who set the pace in the bull gangs would be employed. Some members of the community, not members of this Parliament, would like to return to the conditions under which men who did not set the pace would lose their jobs. The Stevedoring Industry Commission achieved great results by doing away with the old bull gang system and establishing fair conditions for the men. The honorable member for Fawkner spoke repeatedly of “ the Communist-dominated waterside workers “. I know the workers at Port Adelaide well, and I can assure the honorable gentleman that they are not dominated by the Communists. There are Communists amongst them, as there are in many other organizations, but the bulk of the men are not Communists. That is true also of their executive at Port Adelaide, which is not Communist-dominated.
– What about the federal executive ?
Air. THOMPSON”. - We know that the two main leaders of the federation are acknowledged Communists, but most members of the federal executive are not Communists.
– Healy runs the show. The honorable member knows that.
– Perhaps the honorable member does not appreciate the reason why Healy runs the show. I do not like going back into history, but [ do so now for the benefit of the honorable member in order to explain Healy’s status in the federation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) said in this House on one occasion, speaking of a railway strike in Melbourne, that Mr. Brown had been able to boast to the strikers, “If you had taken action by constitutional means you would not have got what you wanted, but now you can see that you have succeeded by taking direct action “. On that occasion, the Leader of the Opposition probably did much to help the. Communists and their leaders even though he may have done so unwittingly. I am sure that the right honorable gentleman afterwards regretted that statement, which must have encouraged the Communists because it gave them an opportunity to say, “ Even the Leader of the Opposition in the Commonwealth Parliament admitted that our action got results when constitutional methods would not have done so “. The Communists always impress upon the workers the slowness and difficulty of achieving their ends by constitutional means and seek to demonstrate that they cannot make progress unless they adopt the Communist party’s tactics and take direct action. Very often industrial troubles arise as the result of constant pressure by the Communists upon men who consider that their just claims have not been satisfied as the result of constitutional procedure. I regret that Mr. Healy and Mr. Roach were not prepared to continue to co-operate in the working of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, but 1 believe that the Government has followed the right course in endeavouring to establish another system to control the industry that will perhaps be more successful than any system that we have had in the past. It has reverted to the idea of appointing an Arbitration Court judge.
– We have an Arbitration Court judge now.
– Yes. He will make the decisions aud I hope that bc will obtain good results.
I refer now to the continually recurring coal shortages in South Australia. South Australians are frequently heavily penalized because they cannot obtain adequate supplies of coal owing to th, general fuel shortage or the inability of the authorities to obtain enough ships of the right type to carry coal to their State from New South Wales. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy) has suggested that faster vessels be placed in service to carry coal to South Australia. Last year I asked the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) to take action to enable South Australia to accumulate sufficient coal reserves to make it independent of the punctual arrival of individual colliers. At present, it depends from week to week upon the timely arrival of colliers, and local shortages are often caused when these ships are delayed by bad weather or other circumstances. I ask that the Australian Shipping Board and the Joint Coal Board make greater efforts than at present to arrange for the prompt shipment of the coal that is allotted to South Australia. Under present conditions, if a collier falls behind schedule, industry is disrupted and people suffer as the result of the interruption of supplies of electric power and gas. I hope that every effort will be made to overcome those difficulties.
– It is to be regretted that coastal shipping services have become so inadequate during the last two years as to have seriously hampered many important industries. Shipping hold-ups do not appear to have been occasioned so much by any desire on the part of wharflabourers and seamen to secure higher rates of pay and better conditions as by a general determination to delay the transportation of supplies and interfere with industry, for, as in the case of the coalminers, all reasonable claims have been granted. In the district which I represent, the towns of Maryborough and Bundaberg are dependent upon river boat services, but there has been increasing delay in the shipment of essential supplies by river boat service. At one time, both towns enjoyed a weekly or even a better service. The present time-table provides for monthly visits instead, but. in practice, ships sometimes arrive at intervals of several months. This has a serious effect upon the development of the area and upon the prosperity of industry generally. Contractors have great difficulty in providing constant employment for their men, especially in the building trade. The iron and steel industry, engineering establishments, concrete construction work and road building have been seriously affected. It is very difficult to establish any new enterprise because of the shortage of essential supplies from manufacturers in New South Wales and Victoria. The hon.orable member for Capricornia (Mr. Davidson) and I have endeavoured to assist local chambers of commerce by urging the Government to take action to overcome the difficulty so that development can proceed unhampered. However, nothing has been done to help the community. I know that the services are conducted by private shipping firms, but they cannot be held to be entirely responsible for the delays. We have had all kinds of experiments by this Government in respect of control of the shipping industry, but all of them have failed. As a result, the Government has been forced to return to the control of industrial conditions in the industry being exercised by a judge of the Arbitration Court. But it does not matter who controls the industry if the Government does not stand behind the controlling authority. I do not say that the Stevedoring Industry Commission, which the Government has abolished, did not try to do its best in the interests of Australian shipping and of the community generally. There is no doubt that Mr. Healy and Mr. Roach, who represented the waterfront employees on the commission, and who were recently removed by the Government, were determined to do everything possible to prevent a faster turn-round of ships and the continuity of supplies to areas that depended on the southern States for their needs. I have strongly supported the request made by the towns of Bundaberg and Maryborough that the last ship delivered to the Government from Walker’s Limited be placed in service in the river trade by its being made available to the shipping company responsible for the carriage of goods to such ports. That should be done, and if the shipping companies do not desire to increase the number of ships that they are now using to serve those districts the Government should ensure that the additional ship is made available. Our first, consideration is the supply of goods to those areas. If the shipping companies are unable to supply their needs adequately then we ask that the Government step in and do so through the medium of the expensive Australian Shipping Board. It is forecast that the Government’s direct interest in shipping will cost the taxpayers £8,000,000 in the coming year. If that is so, the people in the country districts of Queensland should receive, as a return for their share in financing that los3, some benefits in the form of an improved flow of necessary goods transported by sea. Private enterprise has been hampered in its operation of shipping by slow turn-rounds and by industrial strife which has held up ships for long periods in port. One ship was held up for a month in Sydney while fully loaded with goods for which people in Queensland were waiting. An industrial award had prescribed that the ship should carry one cook, but the union demanded that it carry two, although the number of the crew justified only one. Later, the dispute spread to another ship in Brisbane. The delays in the sailings of those two ships occasioned a loss that has never been retrieved. There aTe shiploads of products required for country districts in Queensland lying around in southern ports, particularly Newcastle and Sydney, awaiting shipment. It appears to be impossible for the Government or any controlling authority to have those commodities shipped promptly to the places where they are urgently required. Some cargoes get as far as Brisbane and lie at the wharfs there for long periods. The result of such delays is an ‘increase in freight costs. The consumers have to ;pay this increase, and will still have to pay it in addition to the latest general increase of 115a. a too recently approved by the Government. I do not agree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) that all the trouble connected with the shipping industry arises from past grievances that were caused because tie employees of the industry considered that they had mot received their full due. That is nonsense. Every section of tine community has a past, and considers that it has not received all that it was entitled 4o. This is especially true of the primary producers. That feeling, in fact, is general throughout the world. Waterfront “employees and seamen in Australia have been given just about everything that they iba ve asked for. The real trouble with the industry has been the determination of Communist-controlled anions to upset its stability and create “unemployment. Communistcontrolled unions have already achieved the latter, objective among carpenters, iron and steel workers, sugar industry workers and other tradesmen. I large the Government to control industrial unrest ©n the waterfront and to make more ships available for river and ‘coastal traffic in ‘Queensland. I do not know whether the last ship delivered from Walker’s Limited has been lying idle since the occasion that I boarded it in Maryborough, but I do ‘know that although it has been han-ded over to the ‘Commonwealth it ‘cannot be allocated to any trade until lite Australian Shipping Board is constituted. I understand that applies tiona If or the position of chairman of that board ha ve been invited in other ‘countries, «o T suppose we shall not get adequate shipping for ‘Queensland river and coastal ports until the board has been properly constituted, if ever. Whether that is so ot not, I urge the Government now to remove obstacles that have prevented th* free flow of goods to country districts in Queensland.
– I am not hopeful that the contributions that have been made to the debate by the two honorable members who have so far spoken from the Opposition side of the committee will help in solving problems related to shipping. Those honorable members have taken advantage of the debate to attack, first, the Government and, secondly, the men engaged in the industry. It is well to point out that overseas shipping is controlled by tb> Australian Shipping Board but that coastal shipping was handed bacl to its owners some considerable time ago, and also that the first thing that happened after its return to the owners waa an increase of 15 per cent, in freight rates. Therefore, coastal freight charges are primarily the responsibility of private enterprise, and the Government has no responsibility for that increase of 15 per cent, in freight rates. Private enterprise, .so far as coastal shipping is concerned, has all the initiative and freedom that it previously had. 1 have read some of .the balance-sheets of shipping companies from time to time. They make the usual attacks on the Government, predict all lands of shortcomings for the future and wind up by informing the shareholders that they have just ended one of the most properous years of their history. That goes on from time to time. Notwithstanding the tale of woe that has been unfolded by the Opposition I say unhesitatingly that the .shipping companies of Australia have enjoyed ari era of prosperity unprecedented in their .”history. Their balance.sheets show that they have gone from strength to strength. In addition to paying dividends of between 7 per cent, and 10 per cent, they have established large reserves. A survey of the balance-sheets of the private shipping companies shows that their reserve holdings are higher today than ever before. There has been considerable development in transportation in this country during the last ten years. Airlines are to-day ‘handling a considerable volume of traffic that, prior to 193S, was the monopoly of the shipping companies. The competition now offered by the airlines is considerable.
An attack has been made by the Opposition on the Stevedoring Industry Commission. I point out that that tribunal did an immeasurable amount of work to improve the conditions of workers on the waterfront. Until 1938 conditions in that industry were comparable with those in the coal-mining industry in this country. The conditions of the workers had been neglected by those whose principal concern was the making of profits out of those industries. In view of the appalling conditions under which the waterfront employees laboured prior to the establishment of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, it is no wonder that the background of the shipping industry is clouded in an atmosphere nf bitterness and turbulence. It i.° nothing to be proud of that the conditions in this industry were allowed to deteriorate to such a degree prior to the establishment of the commission. I am pleased, that the Stevedoring Industry Commission contributed so substantially to the improvement of conditions on the waterfront.
The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) attacked the federation for Slaving a monopoly of employment in the industry. There is nothing unusual about she union covering the calling of waterside employment. In other industries, also, the position is the same. So far as the waterfront is concerned, the members of the federation do a specific task in accordance with the will of the Arbitration Court. The members of other unions engaged in the industry also do specific tasks allotted to them by the Arbitration Court. All that the members of the federation have done has been to carry out the work allotted to them by the court. Inasmuch as theirs is the union that covers that industry, there is nothing unusual in. their having a monopoly.
.- The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. O’Connor) has said that the shipowners increased freights by 15 per cent, when the Government relinquished control of the industry. It has already been pointed out to honorable members, and
I think that it should he pointed oat again, in case the honorable member seeks to persuade people to draw a wrong inference, that that 15 per cent, increase was made with the consent of the Maritime Services Commission of the day. I do not intend, however, to embark on a discussion with the honorable member or answer his hymn of hate about the private ship-owners.
Last Monday the Full High Court of Australia declared that liquid fuel rationing regulations were invalid, and as a result the .public became entitled to buy petrol without having to surrender petrol ration coupons, and without any limitations except the availability of supplies. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has said that only a limited quantity of petrol can be brought into Australia because most of that commodity comes from dollar sources. The right honorable gentleman said that he does not intend to authorize an increase of the quantity of petrol that may be brought into this country. In view of the observations that were made recently by the Leader of the Australian Country parly (Mr. Fadden), I should have thought that it would be very difficult for the Prime Minister to maintain thai attitude. The arguments advanced b> the Leader of the Australian Country parly were most impressive and persuasive. However, I am not going to canvass that. Following the court’s judgment the Prime Minister said that he intended to ask the States to take over petrol rationing control. The right honorable gentleman did not do what a real national leader should have done. He entirely failed the people of Australia on a great issue and a great occasion. The Full High Court of Australia had struck off some shackles that had been around the people for a good many years, and returned to them some of the freedom and liberty of action that had been surrendered by them during the war period. Instead of the Prime Minister saying to the people of Australia, “ Th<law now is that you are as free as you were in 1939 to buy and sell and come and go in this field, and I as the leader of the Government will do what I can to assist you “, he suggested that chaos would result. One would have thought that he would devise ways for the people to make the position simpler and easier for themselves. The Government failed the people because the Prime Minister adopted a doctrinaire attitude. It was obvious that he did not want this control co go; he did not agree that the return of an essential freedom to the people was a good thing for the people. It was an occasion for leadership and we did not get it. [t will be a tragedy if petrol rationing is re-imposed on the people because it will mean that once again the shadow of sharp practice, dishonesty, and the black market will come back into the commercial and private lives of the people. Lt will not merely mean that once again ordinary freedom of action will be taken it way. Anybody who has had any experience of petrol rationing in Australia over the last few years knows that many people have resorted to the black market. They claim that they were driven to break the law of the land in an effort to satisfy themselves in their own particular way. Although I do not attempt to justify the breaking of the law, when a law is out of touch with public opinion, hs this law was, and drives people into committing breaches, that law is bad and should bo got rid of as soon as possible. That is why it would be a tragedy to re-impose rationing. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke) asked what would happen if rationing were not restored. During the week-end, I took time off to go round my electorate and speak to garage proprietors and distributors in an endeavour to learn what was their reaction, and that of the public, to he abolition of petrol rationing. It is somewhat early to speak dogmatically, but one might say that, with the exception of the holiday week-end, when one would expect consumption to increase, there has been no notable increase of buying. Some distributors put up notices, *’ Bring your drums, no restriction on sales “. That was unwise and greedy ; but the reputable distributors, who are in a great majority, did not do anything of the sort. They supplied the customers as they came, and to the few who wanted extra petrol, they said, “ We have plenty of petrol in our tanks. Do not. huy more than you want “. After a day or two, in the area which I represent, things had settled down. That is likely to be the position everywhere if distributors and the public are wise, and exercise restraint, instead of giving way to panic. That is what the Prime Minister should have told the people. He should have given them a lead, instead of talking of chaos. Obviously, his nose was out of joint because the High Court had taken away the Commonwealth’s power of control. There is a psychological factor involved in a matter of this kind. When a thing is hard to get, people want it. When meat was rationed, people bought to the limit of the ration. When rationing was abolished, purchases fell off, and meat is available to-day in a way in which it was not available when rationing was in force. The same may be said of clothes rationing. If the petrol distributors are given a chance, and not interfered with, and if the public exercise a reasonable amount of restraint and common sense, there will be no shortage of petrol, and we shall he in no worse position than when rationing was in force. There will be the great advantage that we shall be saved the expense of administering the rationing system, and relieved of the cloud of illegality and chicanery which has surrounded petrol rationing for the last five years.
.- The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) seems to have a strange idea of the qualities of leadership. He attacked the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) to call a conference of State Premiers to discuss the position arising out of the decision of the High Court that the Commonwealth no longer has power to ration petrol. He then went on to say that the Prime Minister wat adamant in his decision that no more petrol would be imported. A little later, he said that, even if rationing were not restored, no more petrol would be consumed. That seems to justify the stand taken by the -Prime Minister, who has said that the Government will not agree to a greater quantity of petrol being imported. It is clear that when more cars, some locally made and some imported, go on the road the consumption of petrol must increase, even if the consumption per car remains the same.
– That would have been 50 if rationing had continued.
– Perhaps, but rationing was designed to keep consumption, particularly of petrol from dollar areas, as low as possible. It is obvious that the abolition of rationing must result in increased consumption. The increase may be great or small, and it may be true that, in the long run, consumption will settle down to something only slightly more than it is at present, but we have no way of knowing. If consumption does not in-, crease materially, it will only be because petrol is dear. Certainly, if petrol were cheaper a great deal more would be used.
The honorable member for Parramatta repeated the argument of the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) that enough petrol was available from non-dollar areas to enable rationing to be abolished. We heard the Leader of the Australian Country party say that Britain was supplying petrol in large quantities to other countries, but we know the reason for that. The Prime Minister pointed out that Great Britain, because of its economic position, was forced to barter petrol for meat and1 other foodstuffs from Argentina. The Leader of the Australian Country party said that the proceeds- of the sale of petrol, even- if converted ultimately into dollars, would1 in the meantime be held’ as a sterling balance. We must take a long-range view of this, problem Britain has a huge dollar deficit. £n a few years,, it will have to- repay the loan to the United’ States of America, and meet the liabilities: represented by the great trade credits that were established m London by various, countries during, the war. I do not know what the real position is, but I assume that, the abolition of petrol rationing in Australia would ultimately affect Britain’s ability to obtain dollar credits. The Prime Minister has information on this subject which is not available to- us, but it is to be gives to the Premiers when they confer, with him. If the States agree to ration petrol it. will; noi be because they like doing- it amy more than we do,, but because the pressure, of Clr.cumstances, and the dire needs of British economy demand that we should assist tha- British by retaining petrol rationing in some form..
– Since the committee is discussing the proposed vote for the Department’ of Shipping and Fuel, I emphasize the need to provide more adequate shipping services for ports in northern Australia, and particularly for Darwin. Although the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) promised last year that a service would be provided to Darwin every six weeks, no improvement has taken place. Indeed, the shipping situation has deteriorated considerably, and the local chamber of commerce unofficially placed its case before me and Senator O’sullivan, who is a member of the Public Works Committee, which recently visited Darwin. Since March, 194S, only four vessels from the eastern States have brought freight to Darwin. The dates of their arrival were the 27th March,, the 2.7th July, the 3rd November, 1948, and the 29th March, 1949. Although the Government may contend that the deficiency was compensated for by the visits of the steamship Koolinda, which carries freight from Western Australia, and made fourteen visits during that period, I point out that the rebuilding programme of Darwin and the needs generally of- the people of the Northern Territory require the delivery of freight from the manufacturing areas of southern and eastern Australia. Since Western Australia has not yet become a highly developed industrial State, vessels from that State cannot supply bore casing, barbed wire, windmills,, fencing materials, cement, and all the other materials, required for housing. While returning to Canberra from my electorate I was in>vited by the people of Townsville, Queensland,, to jio-in their local movement of revolt against what they term. “ Brisbane government “. I took, the opportunity to stress tO’ them the lack of facilities provided £<nr north Australia, and, in consequence, I. was asked to move a motion that the Australian Government should be called upon to construct railways to connect the. Northern Territory with, the east coast, of Australia as well, as with. Alice Springs1. Although one of the local councillors, who voiced the general resentment against the lack of proper shipping services £©* Townsville, strenuously criticized the “Brisbane government”,, I believe that he should also have included the Commonwealth Government in his condemnation. I point out to the Government that both Townsville and Darwin would be much better served if smaller vessels of, say, 3,000 tons, were sent to north Australia from the eastern and southern States. Such vessels have a much quicker turn-round, and instead of Darwin receiving four sea deliveries a year it would probably receive at least eight. The necessity for frequent deliveries is underlined by the humid climate which prevails in Darwin. To take as an example the requirements of the local baking industry, I point out that very few of the bakers can afford to purchase 60 tons of flour at a time, and that even if they could do so, most of the flour would become mouldy because of the climate. An improvement of the Darwin shipping service would also save the Government considerable money by avoiding the payment of expensive road freights on the haulage of goods required for consumption in service messes and canteens. At present the inadequate sea deliveries of stores for service messes have to be supplemented by stores hauled by road from Alice Springs to Darwin, a distance of approximately 1,000 miles, at a cost of £25 per ton, to say nothing of the additional freight of approximately £10 a ton charged for haulage from Adelaide to Alice Springs by rail. Prior to the war, ships carted freight from the south at approximately £3 a ton, and I feel sure that the present sea freights are not more than £5 per ton. I was approached by representatives of public servants in Alice Springs who complained that the cost of living has risen substantially because of an increase of 25 per cent, in freights from Adelaide to Alice Springs, which has taken place within the last three months. Those who are receiving only the basic wage and a little more are at their wits’ ends to pay their way, and they have decided to approach the Public Service Board for a special allowance to offset the very considerable local increase of the cost of living. In addition, I point out that the recent substantial increase in the freight rates must also have an adverse affect on the supply of food for the people of Darwin, as the increased rail freight will be passed on to consumers.
Two members of the Opposition urged that the Stevedoring Industry Commission should be abolished, which would mean, of course, that the commission would no longer control the ports of northern Australia. I do not agree with that contention. In consider it highly desirable that a governmental authority should be retained for the port of Darwin. Incidentally, the press must have received some advance information of the Government’s intentions, when it stated that the Minister for Transport (Mr. “Ward) was most eager to retain the commission in existence so that Communists and other undesirables would not take charge of the waterfront industry. Apparently the press was right when it stated that the Minister fought vigorously for the retention of the commission. I compliment the Government on having, in the first place, appointed a representative of the Stevedoring Industry Commission in Darwin, and my only regret is that the gentleman appointed, Mr. Maguire, who is a very able man and understands the industry thoroughly, should operate in Darwin only on a part-time basis. For years the people of Darwin urged me to press the Government to appoint an industrial authority for Darwin who could conciliate the parties and prevent major disputes from developing out of small incidents. Some time ago I approached the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), explained the situation to him, and suggested that a certain individual whom I named should be appointed for that purpose. Although the Government did not accept my suggestion, it sent Mr. Barry to Darwin to examine the situation on the waterfront last July, and he recommended the appointment of Mr. Maguire on a part-time basis. Mr. Barry was unable to obtain the services of any one on a full-time basis, who knows all there is to be known about the work. Mr. Maguire pointed out that for a person to be in a position to consider the problems of wharf labourers he must virtually live with the men. He must know their problems, and, at the same time, be something of a student in psychology. If the representative of the Stevedoring Industry Commission be withdrawn from Darwin the Communists will again take control of the wharf there. Mr. Maguire is a reputable citizen who is well aware of the problems that confront the workers and the administration on the waterfront. Nearly all of those employed on the Darwin wharf are married men who have their homes in Darwin. I have reason to believe that, perhaps, 75 per cent, of them support my candidature at elections. Some criticism has been levelled at the go-slow tactics employed by wharf -labourers. I can testify from personal observation that such tactics are employed on the Sydney waterfront, but they are not employed in Darwin. I ask honorable members when they visit Darwin to see for themselves b.ow willing to work the wharf labourers are there ; they know that on their efforts will depend the maintenance of necessary supplies to their wives and families. I trust that the Government will give serious consideration to the appointment at Darwin of either Mr. Maguire or some other person as a full-time representative of the Stevedoring Industry Commission so as to ensure that work on the waterfront there shall continue without interruption.
Mrs. BLACKBURN (Bourke) [5.121. - I support the remarks made by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) and the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. O’Connor) regarding waterside workers. Constant criticism is being made of waterside workers by people who do not understand the great difficulties under which such workers have to labour. Conditions on the waterfront were, as the honorable member for Hindmarsh has said, notoriously bad, and although much has been done to improve them, there is still room for considerable improvement. I asn interested in work on the waterfront because many waterside workers live in my electorate. When the Stevedoring Industry Commission Bill was being debated in this chamber I was successful in inducing the Government to accept an amendment incorporating in the measure certain safety provisions. I like to follow up matters in which I am interested and accordingly I visited the wharfs in order to see at first hand tha work being done there. I saw men engaged in unloading a cargo of soda ash, which is classed as a noxious cargo. Soda ash, which was formerly shipped in barrels, is now packed in bags because, they are cheaper. It is a dangerous chemical, and, naturally, the wharf labourers very much dislike handling it. Leakages of the chemical from the bags affect the workers’ eyes and give them a form of dermatitis. If a worker who has open cuts on his hands comes into contact with the chemical, the cute develop into horrible open sores, sometimes an inch in width. If honorable members opposite saw the skin condition of workers resulting from contact with soda ash, they would have a little more sympathy for the men and a better understanding of their hostility towards the handling of such cargoes. I was particularly impressed by the care taken by the wharf labourers to ensure that I stood to windward of the unloading operation; so that I should not be affected by the chemical. I appreciated their courtesy and concern. While watching the unloading of that cargo, I thought of the safety provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Commission Act. I found that no attempt had been made to ensure the protection of the men engaged on the work. No attempt was made to provide bars, railings or other safety appliances around the open hatches. I asked where were the bars or railings, and why they were not being used. None of the men working at the hatches knew whether such protective devices had over been provided on the vessel. All they knew war that they were supposed to be provided, but that nothing had been done. I also asked what provision had been made for first aid treatment of those who were injured in the course of their employment. If honorable members had seen what 1 saw, they would have been as horrified and as shocked as I was. The only provision that could be regarded as a firstaid kit consisted of a broken box without a catch, with a red cross painted on it. containing one small bandage about one and a quarter inches in width. Those who criticize the workers on the waterfront do not know the conditions under which the men labour. The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has referred to go-slow tactics on the waterfront. I, too, should like to have something to say on that subject. Some time ago I asked a question in this chamber relating to an instruction that had been given to waterside workers to “take their time”. In reply I was informed by the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel that the instruction merely meant that the men were to collect their final pay on dismissal. Later a small paragraph appeared in a Western Australian newspaper in which die writer referred to the simplicity of the honorable member who had asked the question. I am not as simple as the writer of the paragraph appears to believe. I asked the question knowing something about an instruction that had been given to the men to take their time - to slow down, riot to collect their pay. Because of the publication of that paragraph I take the opportunity to say now what I could not say when framing my question. I had been informed that occasionally men on the waterfront were told to take their time because there was no great hurry about the unloading of a certain cargo. The waterside workers told me that they believed that the employer who was concerned in this matter had an ulterior motive, which was to discredit the water.side workers and the Commonwealth Government. They knew that if the turnround of the vessels was slow, the Government would get the blame.
– Who told the honor able member that?
– The men on the waterfront told me. Whether it is true or not I do not know, but the men believe it to be true. I have stated these facts in explanation of my question. I should like to know whether any such orders have been issued.
, - I had not intended to speak on this occasion, and should not have done so had it not been for the remarks made by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke) on petrol rationing. The honorable member rather took me to task for my advocacy of the abolition of rationing. I shall not restate the case that I have already presented on this matter, but I shall bring to the notice of honorable members and of the country the latest information on the world petrol position. The following article appears in this afternoon’s Sydney Sun: -
page 883
New York. - World oil markets which have been in American hands almost since the inception of the industry, are now definitely parsing to British interests.
This is stated by the New York Times after a survey by the U.S. International oil executives.
The trend was emphasized a week ago when the British Government reached an agreement to supply the petroleum needs of Argentina for the next five years, according to the Americans.
Under the arrangement, Britain will supply me ] 00,000 barrels daily of oil products from the sterling area in exchange for meat and grain. While some of this oil may come from Venezuela, the consensus in the trade is that the bulk will Mme from British oil concessions in the Middle East. Americans believe that the drive being made by the British for the sale of additional oil is being aided by funds made available under the Marshall Plan. They say that, in the first place, the cost of building refineries in Europe is being supplied largely from Marshall Plan funds.
These refineries are being built to process oil from the Middle East, and with the completion of the programme in the next two or three years, Britain and the European countries tied to sterling will have a refining capacity capable of meeting not only local needs but a sizable export demand.
Another phase of this situation manifests itself in Sweden, according to the New York Times story. In .that country there are three United States companies and two British organizations competing for the oil business.
Recently the Swedish Government reduced sharply the amount of dollars available for oil importations, which meant that the United States companies had to curtail their sales.
At the same time, the British companies stepped in and took over the business that the United States companies had to give up. They could do that because the British companies had been relieved of earning dollars as a result of the Marshall Plan aid to England.
page 883
Conditions in many European countries are similar to those in Sweden. Every country there is anxious to conserve dollars as much as possible for the purchase of goods and materials that may bc had only through their use. With oil in increasing quantities becoming available from sterling areas, United States oil concerns operating abroad will experience steadily increasing competition. “ This competition may bc so keen that the only alternative left for the Americans will b« to withdraw from many markets or sell oil. for sterling and take the chance of converting it later into dollars,” says the New York Times. “ While exports of oil from the United States now are confined largely to specialty products, domestic companies are experiencing difficulty in competing with a British firm operating from this country in the foreign markets. “ An example is furnished by Uruguay and also Argentina. Because payment for exports would not be met in dollars, lubricants processed here by a British firm were sold to these countries for’ payment in sterling. In turn, the British firm took the sterling and converted into dollars under the Marshall Plan.
*’ In the trade it is feared that this method of the British firm in disposing of locally processed oil products in the export market may assume rather large proportions. It is understood that a circular letter giving full details of the operation hae gone out to oil distributors throughout Latin America and to other areas and that, as a result, United States firms have lost some of their important foreign business in specialty products. “ Despite the fact that Britain has socialized many industries, oil executives here declare that foreign business still is being carried on most aggressively in the old capitalistic way and in such a manner that the United States firms are finding it increasingly difficult to compete “.
The point I make is that while, according to the Prime Minister’s figures, which I consider to be greatly exaggerated, Australia needs only another one-third of a million tons of petrol annually to end rationing, the resources from which that comparatively small quantity would be drawn are now to supply 5,700,000 tons a year to Argentina for the next five years. As an Australian, I am impelled to ask, why one-third of a million tons of that 5,700,000 tons cannot be diverted to this country to obviate the need for rationing. The treaty that has been made between the United Kingdom and Argentina for the supply of this huge quantity of petrol is sufficient reason, if no other existed, for the Australian people to feel disgusted and discontented with the deal they are getting.
The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale), quite rightly, has pointed out that the Government should have decided some time ago what action it would take in the event of the High Court failing to uphold the validity of the petrol rationing regulations. On this occasion, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has taken the same action as he took after the rents and prices referendum. He has thrown the baby into the lap of the States, and has summoned a meeting of State Premiers to discuss the position. Surely, he should have given a lead and appealed to petrol consumers in this country not to be stampeded into purchasing petrol in excess of their normal requirements pending consideration of the position. But what has happened? I have before me a telegram that was sent by the New South Wales manager of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, Mr. Leask, to distributors of that company’s brand of motor spirit throughout the State. As honorable members are aware, 51 per cent, of the shares in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited are Commonwealthowned, and therefore the Commonwealth can control the affairs of that organization. The despatch of that telegram reveals an appalling state of affairs, because the communication was likely to encourage the panic buying and use of petrol after the decision of the High Court had been announced. The telegram, which, I am informed, every C.O.R. agent received on the 10th June last, reads -
Trust you realize that all possible means of gaining maximum motor spirit sales result* mil t be pushed to utmost under present unrationed conditions. While good results from some centres’, country sales generally disappointing notwithstanding stock difficuHies. All depots telegraphed similarly arrange Saturday bulk deliveries if gallonage obtainable. Tax-free road permits available until 26th June. Signed Leask
Mr. Leask, who signed those instructions to C.O.R. agents, is no less a person than the New South Wales manager for Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, a company in which the Commonwealth holds 51 per cent, of the shares, 51 per cent, of the interest, and 51 per cent, of the control.
.- I desire to correct the statements that the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) has made. Because of an arrangement made with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company by a previous conservative government, the Commonwealth has no control over the management of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. A Labour government would never have entered into such an arrangement. The Commonwealth, it is true, holds the majority of the shareholding in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. The conservative government that drew up the agreement was quite satisfied with the position. Although it held the majority of the shares in the company, it did not enforce its right to have a majority of the directors. Recently, I raised the matter with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which is the real controller of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and has the right to appoint the general manager of that company even without reference to the Australian Government. I shall not discuss the details of that agreement, but t have raised the matter with the Australian representative of AngloIranian Oil Company. Indeed, E have carried the matter even a little farther than that, and have referred it to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Honorable members generally may not be aware that the United Kingdom Government also has shares in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Perhaps I should qualify that statement by pointing out that, whilst the United Kingdom Government has certain directors in that company it has no control of the organization. In other words, the United Kingdom Government has not sufficient directors in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to influence the policy of that concern. In turn, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company has the dominating voice in the control of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. I have not been happy about that matter, and, I say quite frankly, since the leader of the Australian Country party has raised the subject, that T have suggested that if the activities of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited are to be expanded, the Commonwealth should have more representation in respect of the control of the company. Some time ago, the general manager of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited reached the retiring age, and the first intimation that the Government received about the appointment of his successor was an announcement that AngloIranian Oil Company had appointed a new general manager. The company had not consulted the Government when making a selection.
– Does not the board appoint the manager?
– No, indeed it does not! I advise the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) to peruse the agreement. I can only describe it as an extraordinary agreement. It was made by a conservative government. Although the Commonwealth holds the majority of the shares, it has absolutely no voice in the general management and control of the company. I shall not discuss that aspect, because the agreement is a long one. As I have already explained, I have referred the matter to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I hope that honorable members will understand that I am not complaining about the administrative ability of the present general manager, Mr. Lloyd. He has done an excellent job, subject to the directors and the companies that control Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. During the period of the war, he was most helpful, and was the chairman of the Petroleum Committee. To-day, I invited him to attend the conference of Commonwealth representatives and State Premiers next Friday, and to express his views quite freely about petrol rationing. I have a great respect for his business ability.
I assume that the telegram to which the Leader of the Australian Country party has referred was despatched to agents of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited on the instruction of the State branch manager. Mr. Lloyd and the representatives of the other petrol companies gave me an undertaking last Thursday that they’ would not encourage the sales of petrol.
– The telegram which I have read does not convey that impression.
– That undertaking was given to me by the general managers of the three major oil companies and by the representatives of the smaller companies. Later, I shall refer to the statement that the latter have made about sterling petrol. Probably I shall take the opportunity to ask the general manager of Caltex Oil (Australia) Proprietary Limited to come to Canberra for the purpose of discussing with me certain aspects of that matter. Unfortunately, he is in northern Queensland at present, and I do not propose to make a statement about sterling petrol until I have placed the facts before him. I emphasize that last Thursday afternoon the representatives of the oil companies gave to me an undertaking that they would not encourage an increase of the use of petrol, and I think that, despite any instruction that the manager of a State branch may have issued to the agents of his company, it will be found that that promise has been kept.
– The reply that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has made to the speech by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) pin-points once again the impossible position in which the Commonwealth is placed regarding certain companies in which it owns the majority of the shares, but has a minority of directors. Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is not the only company in that category. The Prime Minister has stated that Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited was established by a conservative government. I remind the right honorable gentleman that since he has been Prime Minister and Treasurer, Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited has been reconstructed. That is another of those company reconstructions which, if the prices realized for the shares on the stock exchange the day after reconstruction became public are an indication, is nothing short of a downright scandal.
– The honorable member’s remarks are not related to the subject of fuel. I ask him not to digress.
– I submit that my remarks are relevant to the department under consideration, and to government hybrid companies. My understanding of the constitution of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is that the United Kingdom Government has always held a majority of the shares in it.
– That is so, but the United Kingdom Government does not have a majority of the directors.
– The Prime Minister has explained that the Commonwealth holds the majority of the shares in the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, but has not a majority of the directors in it, and has not the right to appoint the managing director. Honorable members have often heard the expression that the “ tail wags the dog ‘* but, in this instance, the Anglo-Iranian tail is wagging two dogs, namely, the Commonwealth dog and the United Kingdom dog. An institution that exercises such an influence over governments as that must be very healthy.
– The two agreement* with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (Australia) Limited and Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited were made by conservative governments.
– The Prime Minister, in referring to “conservative governments “ has used an expression that no honorable member, with the exception of myself, has used, and 1 did not think that the right honorable gentleman would share anything with me. The term “ conservative “ may apply to the United Kingdom Government, but it does not apply to any government in Australia. If it did, the Treasurer, in any of his financial actions, could truthfully be dubbed a “ financial conservative “, but I must not trespass on that. The problem at the moment is the much vexed one of oil. There is no doubt that the Leader of the Australian Country party has had a stranglehold on the Prime Minister ever since the matter of petrol rationing came up. The further the argument goes, the more clearly it is shown by letters, cables and telegrams that the Prime Minister has gradually been manoeuvred into a place from which he cannot possibly retreat.
– I advise the honorable member not to commit himself too deeply over that.
– I never do commit myself too deeply. My conservatism is something I share with the Prime Minister. The Prim* Minister must face up to the continual cables from overseas that disclose that the United Kingdom Government has recently signed with Argentina a trade agreement, which is the subject of some opposition from the Government of the
United States of America. The agreement contains at any rate one salient provision, which is that the Government of the United Kingdom, for five years, is prepared to supply Argentina with nineteen times as much oil as we need in Australia to end the need for petrol rationing, on the figures supplied by the Government itself.
– In order to get dollar meat.
– Yes, but the right honorable gentleman has still to answer the cable from New York to-day about the ownership of a number of the dollar petrol pools passing to sterling. lt is not my responsibility to answer it. That is the first-class responsibility of the Government. From the viewpoint of the petrol-users in this country - and I speak with some feeling on behalf of petrol-users in country districts - that answer has not been given. When we compare the petrol rationing in New Zealand with the petrol ration that was available here, we have a bad enough example; but when we go to the European countries, which were under foreign control for a number of years, until they were liberated in 1945, and find that in those countries there is no petrol rationing and that for three or four years they have been dependent on aid from the United States of America for their daily bread almost, we are entitled to ask why petrol rationing is necessary in Australia and New Zealand and why countries that have been conquered and occupied are able to carry on without petrol rationing. There has been no effective answer to that question, but in country and city alike, industry, business and pleasure and everything else in Australia, are awaiting that answer. I hope that after tho conference between the Prime Minister and the State Premiers next Friday, from which I do not think the Prime Minister will get much satisfaction, we shall be given a clear statement of the actual position by the Prime Minister.
– I agree with the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that before the Australian people will accept further regulation of petrol supplies they will want more information about the availability of petrol. I, too, do not think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) will get anywhere with the Premiers when he meets them on Friday, for I do not think any one in the country other’ than he is willing to continue petrol rationing. The government that imposes petrol rationing will reap the greatest retribution possible from the people. This is not the first occasion on which the Prime Minister has shown pique. He showed it when the High Court ruled in favour of the Me.bourne City Council when that body challenged the validity of the Banking Act of 1945, and again when the people threw out the referendum on prices control. On the first occasion, the Prime Minister showed his pique hy deciding to nationalize the private banks, and on the second occasion when he decided to withdraw subsidies and thereby make commodities dearer and bring about chaos.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member must confine himself to fuel.
– I am coming to that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Well, come to it immediately.
– Despite petrol rationing, commercial users of petrol have had little difficulty in obtaining supplies. They are the people who really use petrol in any considerable quantity. Rationing of private users of petrol has not resulted in any real saving. It is likely that the future will soon show that petrol rationing was not a really effective method of saving petrol. Throughout the currency of petrol rationing, there was an extensive black market. I confess that I did not actually come into -contact with it. However, I think its operations were so widespread that petrol consumption will henceforth be very little is excess of what it was when rationing operated. An important aspect of the matter is that for the first time since governmental control of the use of petrol operated, motorists are able to have placed in the petrol tanks of their cars worthwhile motor spirit with a high octane rating that ensures better performance by motor vehicles and more miles to the gallon. Parenthetically, I point out that the lifting of the hand of bureaucracy from the oil and petrol industry, with a resultant improvement of the industry’s products, once more proves the deterioration that sets in when an industry is socialized or quasi-socialized, as the oil and petrol industry was for a long time. The few extra gallons that may be used as the result of the lifting of petrol rationing will not absorb enough dollars to be worth worrying about. The references of the Prime Minister to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, leave me unmoved. We have had as much as we can stand of Cripps, as we have had of Chifley. If there is any one in Australia who can lessen the drain on the Empire dollar pool, it is the primary producer. The Australian Government has shown an utter lack of wisdom by coming down so heavily on the Australian transport system. The country districts have been heavily penalized, particularly by unnecessarily high transport costs on meat and butter and other primary products that Britain should buy from Australia to feed the people of Great Britain, instead of halfstarving them. If the Government wishes to check the drift from the country to the cities and to develop the beef industry in north Australia in order that Great Britain may be able to save the dollars that it has to pay for beef in Argentina, it clearly must cheapen transport in Australia, and that means that it must cheapen motor transport and ensure the availability of fuel. The Government ought to let well alone. The few extra dollars that may be involved in the discontinuance of petrol rationing in Australia will be amply compensated for by an assured transport system, happier people in country districts and increased primary production. Another argument that the Government may use if Cripps remains unconvinced of the wisdom of the lifting of petrol rationing in Australia, is that one of Great Britain’s greatest export lines is motor vehicles. If Australian motorists, even private motorists, are allowed insufficient petrol, the Australian market for British motor vehicles must be curtailed. That is something that can be well said to Cripps. The Australian motorist is as fed up to the teeth with Cripps as he is with Chifley.
.- Listening to honorable gentlemen opposite on the subject of petrol rationing, one cannot help being struck by the fact that they have lost appreciation of the economic plight of the British people. It is difficult to reconcile their views on the genuine effort to assist Great Britain to conserve dollars by means of the saving of petrol with their constant attitude on the public platform that Australia must give greater help to the British people. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) clearly stated, in regard to petrol, that the Government did not wish to ration the supply of any commodity to the Australian people. Honorable members on this side of the chamber are as much aware as are honorable members opposite of the possible political repercussions of restrictions upon the activities of the people, but, unlike honorable gentlemen opposite, when it is necessary, in the interests of the community, to institute a rationing scheme to secure the equitable distribution of a scarce commodity, the Government is not afraid to do so.
Like many other members of the community, I am personally pleased thai petrol can now be obtained, at least temporarily, without coupons, but I am afraid that the abolition of petrol rationing may prove ultimately to be just as detrimental to the welfare of the Australian people as has the defeat of the rents and prices referendum. Honorable members opposite have spoken of the necessity for primary producers to have more petrol. Now that petrol rationing is not in operation, the position that obtains in relation to tobacco may very soon obtain in regard to petrol also. We can now get our supplies of tobacco only from dealers in the areas in which we live, and it may not be very long before the people of New South Wales, foi instance, can obtain petrol only from distributors in the areas in which they reside. Many country people and primary producers may find that if they go by car from, say, Gundagi to Bungendore they will be unable to go back by car because the petrol distributors in Bungendore will supply only their own customers.
Following the cessation of the control of tobacco distribution by the Government, deputations approached the Government and requested that, in the interests of the people, the control should be restored. It is to be hoped that we shall not, in the near future, face a position in regard to petrol similar to that which exists in relation to tobacco, because chaotic conditions would be created. It may be that soon petrol will be available to primary producers only if they are prepared to pay inflated prices for it. It has been said that there has been no rush on the petrol filling stations in the country districts. On the 8th June, the Junee Southern Cross, a well known country newspaper contained a report stating that petrol sales in Junee on the 7th June, immediately following the publication of the decision of the High Court, had reached an “ all-time high that there had been panic purchasing of petrol, that senseless hoarding was taking place and that orders for 44-gallon drums by the dozen had been whittled down considerably. There has been a great rush on the suburban petrol filling stations. Some people have bought huge quantities of petrol in order to store it and sell it later at black-market prices. Common sense demands that, because of the dollar shortage and the necessity to assist the British people in their economic struggle, we should restrict imports of petrol into Australia. If no more petrol is to be imported than was imported when rationing was in force, the supplies that will be available will go to those people who have the most money. The abolition of petrol rationing will not make larger quantities available. Although the permit system for American cars has been abolished, people cannot obtain American cars, because not enough of them are coming into the country. If only a certain quantity of petrol is allowed to be imported and if no rationing scheme is in force, petrol distributors will supply users in the areas to which it is easiest for them to send their supplies, and primary producers will not get the petrol that they require because it will be more economical for the distributors to send it elsewhere. Although I share with other members of the community a feeling of pleasure at being able to obtain petrol without coupons, I cannot help but think that we may ultimately face the chaotic position in regard to petrol that we now face in relation to prices and, to a less degree, tobacco. Ex-servicemen who wish to start businesses are unable to obtain quotas of tobacco because the control of distribution has passed out of the hands of the Government.
.- Soma extraordinary propositions have been advanced by Government supporters ia. attempts to answer the arguments against petrol rationing that have been put for«ward by the Leader of the Australian, Country party (Mr. Fadden), and otherhonorable members on this side of thechamber. One of the most farcical of’ those propositions was that honorable.members on this side of the chamber, by their criticism of the retention of petrol rationing, have acted in an anti-British manner. I have been a member of the1 Parliament for many years, and during that time I have listened to the arguments that have been used by members of the Labour party in opposition to suggestions of greater Empire co-operation. It is ironic that honorable gentlemen opposite should now charge us with being antiBritish. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has said that the Government desires to retain petrol rationing in order that Great Britain may be able to purchase meat from dollar areas. I remind the committee that this Government abolished meat rationing in Australia. Great Britain is desperately in need of meat. If the Government is determined to do all it can to supply greater, quantities of meat to the British people, why has it abolished meat rationing here? What is the Government doing to increase the export to Great Britain of foodstuffs from Australia, for the purchase of which sterling is used? We have pressed the Prime Minister to initiate or encourage the holding of a conference of countries of the British Commonwealth to discuss economic problems, but the right honorable gentleman has said that it will be futile to hold a conference of that kind owing to the diversity of the economic interests of those countries. The answer to the contention that the countries of the British Commonwealth have no common economic interests is supplied by the fact that in the period immediately following the Ottawa conference they combined together to seek a common solution of their problems. If the spirit of the Australian Government is willing and the Attlee Government desires to co-operate, Australia and other British Commonwealth countries could do a great deal to ease the economic difficulties from which Great Britain is now suffering. Honorable members on this side of the chamber are not convinced that petrol cannot be made available to us in the quantities that we require to abolish petrol rationing here, because the figures that have been given by the Prime Minister reveal that approximately twenty times as much petrol as would be necessary to enable rationing to be ended in Australia is now being made available to the Argentine. It is highly debatable whether there will be a greater consumption of petrol by individual consumers in Australia now that rationing is inoperative. It may be, as the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke), has said, that because more cars are coming into the country there will necessarily be a greater over-all use of petrol, but I have not heard it suggested by the Government that if the rationing system had been maintained the ration of the ordinary consumer would have been reduced.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
– -The proposed vote that the committee is now considering is that of the Department of Shipping and Fuel. This is one of those war-time departments which had a mushroom growth, and, for reasons best known to the Government, has found a continuing existence in the period of peace. It provides for us one of the most interesting illustrations of socialist enterprise under government control that we can discover in our Commonwealth administration, and. I say at once that it is a shocking advertisement for socialism. Not only have we this considerable government department, but also we have at least four additional instrumentalities that deal with different matters relating to shipping and waterfront activities. There are the Australian Shipping Board, which supervises shipping operations generally, the
Australian Shipbuilding Board, which supervises the construction of vessels, the Stevedoring Industry Commission, which was intended to regulate employment on the waterfront, and the Maritime Industry Commission, which regulates conditions of employment amongst seamen. As the result of painful experience over many years, when a government maintains socialist control of any phase of industry, we could expect that these would be costly controls from the point of view of the taxpayers. This has proved to be the case. For example, the Australian Shipping Board incurred an accumulated loss of £11,000,000 in the three years that ended in 1948. We are given to understand by to-day’s press that the preliminary estimate of the loss that will be incurred by the board in the current year is about £8,000,000, which will make a grand total loss of just under £20,000,000 for the last four years. We expect that losses will be incurred. We have come to regard them as being almost inevitable, particularly since the Commonwealth monopoly of post and telegraph services has at last disclosed a loss which must be met by means of increased charges. However, governments occasionally justify these burdens that they place upon the taxpayers by saying thai the enterprises confer upon the community benefits that more than counterbalance the costs.
Therefore, I ask, in the first place, whether this control of shipping by the Government has given us a better or a cheaper shipping service. Once again, the facts do not provide a very good advertisement for socialist enterprise. In 1939, the freight rate for general cargo between Melbourne and Sydney was 27s. a ton. The current rate is 82s. a ton, or more than three times the rate of 1939. What is true of the rate between Melbourne and Sydney is true also, to a lesser or greater degree, of freight charges on other routes. So this form of control . has not given us a cheaper service. I do not think that anybody will claim that we have a better shipping service to-day despite the fact that the tonnage operating in Australian waters is about 40 per cent, greater than in 1939. In the second place, I ask whether this control has developed trade and promoted prosperity. Here I turn to the experience of Victoria. Far from these costly controls promoting interstate trade we find, in a report published only a few days ago by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce, that the interstate cargo handled in Victoria last year was more than 500,000 tons less than the volume handled in the pre-war year of 1939. The total last year was 3,131,000 tons, compared with 3,657,000 tons in 1939. That decrease has occurred despite the fact that we have 40 per cent, more tonnage available now than we had then. Thus, it would scarcely appear that trade has been promoted. In fact, the increased freight costs have discouraged many manufacturers from shipping their goods from one State to another. In the third place, [ ask whether this control has assured industrial peace and regulated satisfactorily the conditions of employment in the industry. Whatever else may he claimed for Commonwealth control of shipping and our maritime services generally, it certainly cannot be claimed in honesty that it has given us industrial peace. We have had a continuous experience of disturbance and turbulence on the waterfront which has goaded even this lethargic Government to a point at which it has decided to abolish the Stevedoring Industry Commission that it appointed to deal with problems of employment on the waterfront. From the outset, the commission has been affected notoriously by the Communist-controlled Waterside Workers Federation, and even the Government at last has become so dissatisfied with that state of affairs that it has discharged Mr. Healy and Mr. Roach from the commission and has decided to abolish it. But despite the dissatisfaction caused by those Communist union executives, the Government has allowed the Waterside Workers Federation to exercise a monopoly of employment on the waterfront. Thus, we have a curious state of affairs in which a government, which claims that it is opposed to monopolies and gives to citizens the opportunity to seek whatever employment they desire, restricts opportunities for employment on the waterfront to those who are prepared to join the Waterside Workers Federation and gives a monopoly of engagements to that union. That has not justified the heavy costs that have been incurred. In the result, we have paid dearly for this socialistic enterprise, not merely in terms of money, but also in terms of continuity of employment on the waterfront. The experiment of government control, government ownership and government direction has been tried to the full in this highly important industry. The experiment has been costly, it has resulted in an impaired service, it has caused less trade instead of more trade, and it has caused industrial chaos rather than industrial peace. It is remarkable that although honorable members on both side9 of the chamber have discussed this subject to-day, we have not yet heard one word in reply from any Minister. We have not been told whether the Government has any alternative proposals to make or whether it contemplates taking any remedial measures to deal with a situation that is undeniably unsatisfactory. I hope that, before the committee disposes of this proposed vote, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), who represents the Minister foi Shipping and Fuel in this chamber, will recognize the disgraceful and disastrous condition of affairs which has developed from Commonwealth control of the shipping industry and will indicate whether the Government has in view any programme that will place a better anc cheaper shipping service at the command’ of the Australian public.
, - The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has dealt with two matters, the shipping industry and petrol rationing. Several other honorable members opposite have also discussed petrol rationing. At the moment I cannot give as much information on that subject as I should like to give. Nevertheless, it is advisable that 1 should give some explanation of the situation as I see it. I consider that I have a fairly thorough grasp of the subject as I am a member of the dollar subcommittee of Cabinet, the purpose of which is to ensure that this country does not expend more dollars than it can help. In order to understand the need for petrol rationing and its place in the policy for conserving dollar resources it is necessary to study the position of the United Kingdom in relation to its balance of payments, and also that of Australia vis-a-ois dollars. The United Kingdom’s position concerning balance of payments involves not only the dollar question but also its relation to the whole field of balance of payments, that is, with the sterling area as well as the dollar area. Whilst the United Kingdom must endeavour to effect a balance of payment between itself and the dollar area it must also ensure that it receives enough Tevenue from other parts of the world to provide it with the raw materials and ion( stuffs required to keep its economy ;going. Australia’s position is slightly different from that of the United Kingdom, in that we are earning large amounts of sterling, and I hope that that position will contiinue for some time to come. However, we are not earning sufficient dollars to meet our dollar requirements. Australia is concerned with balance of payments only as it relates to the dollar position, whereas, as I have said, the United Kingdom must look to its balance of payments position as a whole, although particularly with regard to dollars. The United Kingdom is at present able to maintain its balance of payments evenly only through Marshall aid, and all who have studied this particular problem agree that as time goes on Britain will find it oven more difficult to earn sufficient dollars to pay for its imports from North American sources. The indications are that it will become extremely difficult for the United Kingdom to sell its products in the dollar area so as to earn sufficient dollars to meet its requirements. Australia itself has never been able to sell sufficient goods to North America to provide the dollars that it needs for its own economy. Let me give the committee some of the main items of our economy that require the expenditure of dollars. The amounts are expressed in Australian currency. They are: - Motor chassis, about £5,000,000; machinery of certain kinds available only in North America, £5.000.000 ; tractors, £3,000,000 ; tobacco, £3.000,000; timber, £4,000,000; cotton and rayon cord for tyre manufacture, £2,000,000. Newsprint, which formerly took a large amount of dollars has now been cut down to £2,000,000 and we may be able to reduce that in the future.
– Are all those goods imported from the United States of America ?
– Yes. Those are the main items of dollar expenditure by Australia. Spare parts for motor cars, machinery, tractors, and farm implements generally cost £5,000,000. Then there is this very large item of petrol that we are now discussing.
– What is our dollar expenditure on petrol?
– I shall deal with that matter in a few moments. At the moment I am citing some of the main items of expenditure that involve the use of dollars. I point out to honorable members opposite and to the country just what a plight Australia would be in if we had to reduce our expenditure on, for example, tractors from North America, which are so vital to the interests of the primary producers ; or, on the other hand, if we had to cut down the importation of motor chassis to an extent greater than we have had to do so far. Such an action would cause great unemployment in South Australia, Victoria, and other centres of the motor-car manufacturing industry in Australia. I also point out how badly our economy would suffer if certain industries were unable to obtain specialized machinery that is obtainable only from the United States. From time to time I have pointed out how much investors have become interested in the economy of this country, and have stated that since the end of the war a total capital of £175,000,000 has been invested in new and expanding industries. Every new industry started in Australia probably involves the importation from the United States of some new kind of machinery. That certainly is the case with a very large number of new industries and also in regard to the expansion of existing industries. Australia has a programme for an increased production of coal in the future which is to be achieved by the mechanization of mines. The success of that programme will rest largely upon the importation from the United States of large quantities of machinery. It will be seen, therefore, that the items of dollar expenditure that I have cited are very important to the economy of this country. I desire now to state the position as it was in the year 1947-48. In that year, our total exports to the dollar area were worth £40,700,000. During the same year we imported from the United States of America goods to the value of £83,400,000, thus showing a deficit of roughly £40,000,000. That figure must be adjusted in relation to the value of what are known as “ invisible exports “. For example, we had to pay in that year the sum of £3,000,000 as interest on our debt in New York. Freight on imports amounted to £13,600,000; insurance to £1,000,000; and packages to £1,800,000. Expenditure by Australian tourists totalled £1,000,000, against which there was a set-off of expenditure by overseas tourists in Australia of £300,000. Other invisible exports included film remittances £1,400,000 and profit and dividend remittances to companies whose headquarters are in the United States of America, £2,400,000.
– Where did the Minister obtain these figures?
– The figures were extracted from government documents, and if the honorable member questions any of them I am willing to make available to him the sources from which I obtained them. I have given these figures merely to show how much this country’s economy is in deficit as far as dollars are concerned. During the year 1948, there was a large actual expenditure, as distinct from an estimated expenditure, on the dollar component of petrol and oil imported from outside the dollar area. It has been said time and time again in this chamber that petrol from outside the dollar area involves the expenditure of dollars because, in some instances, it reaches Australia in American tankers. In many other instances the companies which sell such petrol in Iran, Iraq and other eastern countries pay their staffs in dollars, and naturally want to be themselves paid in dollars, even though the petrol was produced outside the dollar area.
– Who works out the dollar component of such petrol ?
– I am showing how much in dollars petrol cost Australia in the year 1947-48. In that year the dollar component of petrol from outside the dollar area, which entered Australia, was £3,900,000, or nearly 12,000,000 dollars. The amount of petrol brought into Australia every year costs Australia about £30,000,000.
– Is that calculated in Australian currency?
– Yes. That is approximately the cost of the petrol coming into Australia in a year. Last year one-sixth of that petrol came from the dollar area, at a cost to us of about £5,000,000 Australian. In addition, one-sixth of the petrol which does not come from the dollar area has a dollar content. Honorable members can see, therefore, that the amount we need to provide in dollars to obtain sufficient petrol for Australia, even under a rationing system, is considerable.
– That is so whether or not we have rationing.
– I consider that this country cannot afford to buy petrol in excess pf the quantity we have been consuming in recent years. Several honorable members opposite have said that there would be very little increase of the consumption of petrol if rationing were not imposed by the States. Of course the Commonwealth now has no authority to ration petrol. It is interesting to note such estimates by people connected with the petroleum industry generally. T do not refer to the government officials. They consider that the abolition of petrol rationing will, in all probability, cause an increased consumption of between 10 per cent, and 12 per cent. Whenever I have used the word “ petrol “ I have referred to all petroleum products.
– The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) said that there would be a 20 per cent, increase.
– On the other hand, a Commonwealth authority, I think, the Commonwealth Statistician, who has access to the rationing figures and has a very good understanding of figures generally, estimates that the increased consumption may be anything up to 20 per cent. Let us split the difference and say that the consumption of petrol will be increased by 15 per cent. Since the petrol consumed in Australia at present costs us about £30,000,000 a year, on a 10 per cent, increase basis an additional £3,000,000 would be involved. At present we are in effect getting all the petrol that we can obtain from non-dollar sources because the whole of the output of Britishcontrolled companies is committed. Therefore the cost of the abolition of petrol rationing, in dollars, would be the equivalent of £A.3,000,000. That is about 9,000,000 dollars, calculated at the present rate of exchange of about three dollars to the £A1. [f the Commonwealth. Statistician were right in his estimate, and there was a 20 per cent, increase, the increased cost to us would be the equivalent of 18,000,000 dollars.
– What if the increase was only 5 per cent.?
– I am not considering that, because no one who has any knowledge of the facts believes that consumption would increase by only 5 per cent.
– The Automobile Association of Australia has said that the increase would be between 5 per cent, and 10 per cent.
– No one who has been in close association with petrol rationing has ever estimated it at any figure as low as 5 per cent.
– Mr. Bate did.
– The right honorable gentleman may estimate it at nothing at all, but since he is so often wrong in his estimates we need not be concerned about that. Those very closely associated with the industry and having no axe to grind in this matter have advised the Government that the increase would be between 10 per cent, and 12 per cent. On the other hand, certain government officials connected with the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics estimate it as high as 20 per cent. Even if we take the lowest estimate of 10 per cent, as accurate it would mean that an additional £A.3,000,000 would need to be made available in dollars. I have already outlined our own balance of payment position so far as dollars are concerned. The whole of the additional £3,000,000 worth of dollars would have to be obtained from the United Kingdom, and therefore the United Kingdom would be able to buy only so much less foodstuffs and other products from the dollar area. Although honorable members opposite prate about loyalty te the United Kingdom, and say that they earnestly desire to assist the United Kingdom Government, their present advocacy of the expenditure of additional Australian pounds in dollars for tinpurchase of petrol means that they are, in effect, advocating an expenditure which will make it very difficult for the people of the United Kingdom to maintain their economy.
– What amount in dollars did the Convair airliners cost?
– I am not discussing that matter at present. The Convairs did not cost the Government any more than other types of Americanbuilt aircraft haw cost Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. I have already pointed out that if there is a 10 per cent, increase in the consumption of petrol an expenditure of the dollar equivalent of an additional £A.3,000,000 will be involved. We cannot afford to spend an extra £3,000,000 on goods from dollar areas because by so doing we would make the position of the United Kingdom much more difficult. But if we have £A.3,000,000 which we think ought to be spent on dollar goods, there are many items other than additional petrol that could be purchased, and which would be of much greater benefit to us.
– Such as tobacco?
– It is all very well for the right honorable gentleman to talk about tobacco. The plain fact is that the people of this country want cigarette* and tobacco.
– They are getting them from England.
– They are not getting an unlimited quantity of tobacco and cigarettes from the United Kingdom. We are doing the very best that we can do to ensure that the production of tobacco in this country will be increased, in order to save dollar expenditure. If Australia had more dollars to spend it would be better to spend them on more tractors for primary producers and on machinery of a specialized kind for new industries which would enable us to save large dollar expenditure in the future.
– Even if it were necessary co pay a bit more it would he worth while importing machinery so that we could put an end to the power black-outs in New South Wales.
– The only way to stop the black-outs in New South Wales is to produce more coal. The shortage of coal is not due to the fact that the miners are not producing as much coal as formerly. In large measure, it is due to the tact that people ‘to-day are in possession of electrical appliances which create a tar greater demand for electric power than ever existed before, which, in turn, requires more coal than ever before. The consumption of electricity has increased by 75 per cent, since before the war. Unfortunately, we have not the coal to enable us to produce enough electric power to prevent black-outs. I agree that if we had more dollars it would be better f.o spend them on machinery for producing coal rather than on petrol. We aro doing the best we can do. A subcommittee of Cabinet is watching the situation all the time. We have fixed a ceiling for dollar expenditure, taking into account the fact that if we were to go above the ceiling figure we should really be stealing dollars from the United Kingdom.
– Yes, and giving them to Argentina.
– We should, as I said, be stealing dollars from the more needy people of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the Government does not intend to follow a course of action that would result in our dollar expenditure going above the ceiling figure. If more dollars were spent on petrol, then inevitably fewer dollars would be available for expenditure on other and more important commodities.
– I think the kindest thing would be to allow the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) to wallow in the bog he has created. I did not hear a word from him to-night that answered in any way the criticism advanced from this side of the committee, particularly by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden), regarding sterling petrol and dollar petrol. This afternoon, I initiated a discussion on petrol by offering the opinion that, after the High Court had declared petrol rationing to be invalid, it was the duty of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), if he were a statesman and not a party politician, to give the people of Australia a lead on the use of petrol. I said then, and I repeat, that he must have known perfectly well what the verdict of the High Court was likely to be. Any one who followed the arguments before the court, and the Prime Minister must have been kept informed of them, could not fail to be impressed by the argument of the appellants. The Prime Minister must have been aware of the arguments that were advanced day by day. Some weeks elapsed between the end of the hearing and the giving of judgment by the court. Therefore, the Prime Minister had plenty of time in which to formulate a policy and prepare a statement offering 8 lead to the people on how they should act. It was his duty, when the verdict of the court was given, to say to the people: “ The High Court has decided this matter. It has returned to you the freedom you enjoyed as citizens before petrol rationing was imposed. The court has defined the law, and the Government will abide by the law. We shall suggest to you and to the trade how normal distribution can be made to work “. However, the Prime Minister only mumbled something about chaos, and said that he would call a conference of State Premiers with the idea of persuading them to reimpose rationing on a State basis. Of course, the Premiers will not touch it with a 40-ft. pole. That i& obvious. From the indifferent way in which the Prime Minister approached this matter it would almost seem as if he wanted chaos to ensue. His behaviour has not been that of the home-spun Lincoln, which i9 the character that his supporters are trying to establish for him. It has been that of a party politician with doctrinaire ideas on regimentation, and the desirability of continuing petrol rationing. In support of my views, the Leader of the Australian Country party made the point that, far from the Prime Minister and the Government doing anything to bring about an easy transition from government control to private distribution of petrol, something has been done by a government instrumentality which was precisely calculated to produce chaos. He read a telegram sent by Mr. Leask, New South Wales manager of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, a government corporation in which the Government owns 51 per cent. of the shares. The telegram, which I shall read again, was sent to all agents of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, and is in these extraordinary terms -
Trust you realize that allpossible means of gaining maximum motor spirit sales results must be pushed to utmost under present unrationed conditions. While good results from some centres, country sales generally disappointing notwithstanding stock difficulties. All depots telegraphed similarly arrange Saturday bulk deliveries if gallonage obtainable. Tax-free road permits available until 26th June.
If anything was calculated to encourage undue consumption of petrol and to influence the public to consume petrol after the fashion of a drunken sailor spending his money, it was that telegram. Mention of the telegram, which was signed by Mr. Leask, brought the Prime Minister to his feet, and he tried to make some kind of excuse for the despatch of the telegram, although he did not deny its authenticity. However, he attempted to defend the Government’s action by stating that, although the Australian Government owns 250,001 of the total share capital of £500,000, it was restricted, because of an agreement made some years ago with the Anglo- Persian Oil Company Limited, which is now the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited, from doing anything more than appointing three of the seven directors of the company. He said in effect, “We have only three out of seven directors, and therefore the action taken by the company is not our responsibility”. If the Prime Minister was sincere and if his argument meant anything at all, it meant that the Australian Government had no power or influence to prevent Mr.
Leask from sending out such a telegram or to restrain any of the company’s agents from acting in the manner suggested in the telegram. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the statute under which the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited was established. The Oil Agreement Act 1920 had appended to it an agreement under which the Commonwealth Oil Refineries corporation was established, and that document included a provision that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company Limited, which has now become the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited, was to supply all the petrol for Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. I shall not burden the committee by referring to the subsequent acts of 1924 and 1926, and I shall cite only those sections of the act of 1920 that are obviously relevant to the Prime Minister’s assertion that the Government is not responsible for the acts of the directors of the company, annexed to the Oil Agreement Act 1920 as a schedule is the agreement made by the Australian Government with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited, which provides that the Australian Government shall have a controlling interest in the share capital of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. The Commonwealth owns 250,001 of the total shares, which number 500,000. It does not need a lawyer to point out that that provision clearly gives to the Commonwealth, and therefore to the Prime Minister, some power to control the policy of the company. Furthermore, Article 3 (d) of the agreement provides -
The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Refinery Company and any alteration thereof shall be subject to the approval of the Commonwealth and shall provide (inter alia) : -
that no action or question or decision relating to or affecting -
any proposed sale of refined products on long contracts or under circumstances which mightendanger the ability of the Refinery Company to meet requirements for consumption within Australia ; shall be taken determined or made without the consent of the Commonwealth as expressed through its representatives on the Board of Directors :
I should have thought that the words - any proposed sale . . . under circum stances which might endanger the ability of the refinery company to meet requirements for consumption within Australia; would have amply justified the intervention of the Australian Government in this instance. However, if it be asserted, by a lawyer’s quibble, that those words are of doubtful meaning, I invite the attention of the committee to certain other matters which cannot be disputed. In the first place, if the Government’s view of the correct legal construction that should be placed on those words was challenged, the matter could have been arbitrated in the usual way. It is clear, therefore, that the Commonwealth could have contested any action which it was thought was wrongfully taken by the other directors. Furthermore, Article 16 of the agreement gave the Australian Government power to acquire the company outright if it did not agree with the policy of its directorate as constituted at any time, and the Government has enjoyed that power since 1935. Labour has been in office since 1941, and it could have exercised power to acquire outright the business of the company, upon giving two years’ notice to the company of its intention to do so, and it could then have operated the business as a national concern. That is obviously a complete answer to the Prime Minister’s assertion that the Government did not like the idea of possessing only three seats on a directorate of seven, although it owned the majority of the shares. If either the Government or the Prime Minister did not approve of the directors or of their policy or administration, why did not the Prime Minister exercise the Government’s undoubted power to take over the company? He did not do so for the obvious reason that the company was functioning admirably and the Government had no desire to interfere with its operations. When he was challenged concerning the company’s operations, the right honorable gentleman sought to shelter behind certain alleged technicalities in order to evade responsibility for the despatch of the telegram which the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) so rightly brought to the notice of the Parliament in such a powerful fashion.
It is also obvious that during the interval which elapsed between the hearing of the action on the legality of petrol rationing and the delivery of judgment, when the Prime Minister must have had some inkling of the possible outcome of the action, and even more so immediately after delivery of judgment, the right honorable gentleman should have acted. Indeed, had he done his job as the prime minister of a national government and as a statesman and a real leader, he would have intervened in the matter as early as possible. He could have said to the Government’s three nominees on the board of directors of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited: “I want you to ensure that supplies are distributed only in a normal fashion; that nothing is done to boost sales; that no action is taken that might cause panic- buying ; and that petrol is not thrust upon people who do not actually need it. You must assist the community by encouraging people to continue to conserve petrol, and to discourage abnormal consumption “. I reiterate that the Prime Minister could reasonably have been expected to foresee the consequences of an adverse judgment of the High Court. He could easily have issued an advance direction to the Government nominees on the directorate of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited before judgment was delivered by the High Court. Suppose, for a moment, that the other four directors of the concern proved recalcitrant. It was within the power of the Prime Minister to direct his nominees to summon an emergency meeting of shareholders of the company and he could have compelled the acquiescence of the directors in any one of a dozen ways. No attempt whatever was made to do so. To summarize what I have said, all the Prime Minister had to do was to caution the directors of the Government’s own company to ensure that moderation was exercised when the rationing of petrol was discontinued. The Prime Minister did not do so, and his attempt to shelter behind the oil agreement made by the Government with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company Limited is a piece of hairsplitting humbug which will deceive no one. The plain fact is that at a time when leadership required that he should anticipate the consequences of the restoration by the High Court to the community of its freedom in this matter, and at a time when every obligation devolved upon him to exercise his power to encourage mod.eration in the consumption of petrol, he lid nothing but mumble about chaos and summon a conference of State premiers. As 1 have already pointed out, one needs only to peruse the terms of the oil agreement to realize that the Prime Minister stands condemned. Of course, the provision of the agreement to which the right honorable gentleman referred had really nothing to do with this attitude and was only put forward belatedly as an excuse for his inaction. All that was required of him, as leader of the Government, was s few words of caution; he did not utter those words.
– The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) has just made one of the most despicable statements I have heard from him. To tell the committee and the people of Australia who may be listening to the broadcast of these proceedings, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) did nothing at all but. summon a conference of State premiers, and not to make the slightest reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, is absolutely contemptible. The Prime Minister’s statement was made in response to the allegations of the Leader of the Australian Country parly (Mr. Fadden) concerning a telegram despatched by Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. The Leader of the Australian Country party mentioned the date of the telegram, which was last Friday, the 10th June, and I notice that he now nods his head, apparently in assent. In the course of the statement that he made this afternoon, the Prime Minister stated quite definitely that on Thursday last, the 9th June, he conferred with all the controllers of the petrol companies in Australia, and that they assured him that no increased sales of petrol would be made.
– Yet, on the very next day, the Commonwealth Oil Henneries Limited, which is largely the Government’s own organization, ema& out the telegram.
– I have answered the point made by the honorable member for Parramatta by referring to the clear and unequivocal statement of the Prime Minister that on Thursday last he conferred with representatives of the oil companies, who agreed not to accelerate the bale of petrol. In spite of that the honorable member for Parramatta hat condemned the Prime Minister for what he has termed lack of leadership. The telegram to which reference has been made was sent on the day following the Prime Minister’s conference with the representatives of the oil companies. The right honorable gentleman has made it clear this afternoon that Mr. Leask. who sent the telegram, is the head of the company’s organization in New South Wales and not the managing director of the company. The managing director of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and not the Government should take action against Mr. Leask. I observe that the Leader of the Australian Country party agrees with me. The honorable member for Parramatta has merely attempted to side-track the issue. His statement that the telegram was sent out by Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, in which the Commonwealth owns the majority of the shares, is “ playing it pretty low down “. I have yet to learn that the three government nominees on the directorate of the company could out-vote the other four directors. Even if they were able to do so, how could their action affect the other oil companies? Honorable members opposite are continually attacking government instrumentalities for competing with private enterprise. The honorable member for Parramatta, who is a great protagonist of the rights of private enterprise, contends that the Government should say to the directors of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited : “ Do not accelerate your sales of petrol. Do not do anything about this matter. The other oil companies may do as they like “. Honorable members opposite contend that if the Prime Minister knew that the Government’s power to ration petrol was likely to be successfully challenged in the High Court he should have made preparations to meet the .position.
What preparations could the right honorable gentleman have made? It is all very -veil for honorable members opposite to falk about making preparations. They are well aware that the only action the Prime Minister could have taken was to approach the State Premiers and request them to continue some form of rationing. The right honorable gentleman has already done that. Honorable members opposite have spoken about the chaotic conditions that may result from the abolition of petrol rationing. The honorable member for Parramatta spoke about the Prime Minister leading the Premiers on, hut, he said, they would not touch petrol rationing with a. 40-ft. pole. Evidently the honorable member is anxious that the Premiers should do nothing about it. I think that I can see as far into the future as can the average honorable member. Honorable members opposite are making a political issue of this matter with an <:yo on the coming general election. They are determined to make it a political issue simply because they have no policy to place before the people. Because they have no worthwhile policy to put before the people they endeavour on every possible occasion to throw suspicion on die Government. In respect of every proposal put before them they endeavour ro convince the people that there is a nigger in the woodpile and that the Government is seeking to put something over them. They are employing those tactics again to-night. I was amazed to hear the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) repeat to-night a statement which he made this afternoon about the waterside workers. He also repeated figures which he had cited this afternoon about the tonnage arriving in the port of Melbourne.
– The Minister has not answered those statements.
– Honorable meIn.bers opposite are merely endeavouring to gain a petty party political advantage. Obviously the honorable member for Fawkner regards such statements as good political propaganda. He contended that the Australian Shipping Board had been operated at a loss. We are well aware that the private ship ping companies were able to make large profits solely because of the subsidies they received from the Government. He also said that they cannot now continue to function unless freight rates are further increased by 15s. a ton, and that they cannot raise the freight rates unless the rates on ships operated by the Government are raised likewise. Such statements are made purely in an attempt to convince the people that the Government should not compete with private enterprise. The honorable member even had the audacity to say that the Australian Shipping Board had lost £7,000,000 in three years.
– I said that it would lose £8,000,000 this year.
– The honorable gentleman said that the loss this year will amount to £8,000,000. He know, quite well that but for the subsidies paid to the private shipping companies, which enabled them to make large profits, the losses on the government’s operations would have been negligible. He said that the Government took money from the pockets of taxpayers to finance these losses. I remind him that many millions of pounds were taken from the pockets of the taxpayers to subsidize the private shipping companies. Honorable members opposite do not complain about subsidies if the money is paid to persons or companies in whom they are interested. If, however, a government-operated instrumentality which competes with subsidized private enterprise makes a loss, (he loss is invariably blamed on this socalled incompetent Government.
I return now to the subject of petrol and oil. The honorable member for Parramatta may read ‘ as much as he likes from the oil agreement. In my opinion the statements made by the Prime Minister count for much more than anything which the honorable member for Parramatta may read from a book. What has happened in connexion with Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is the direct result of the action of the Government formed by honorable members opposite in appointing only three government nominees to the directorate of the company and allowing the remainder of the shareholders to retain majority representation on the board of directors. Although 250,001 shares in the company are held by the Commonwealth, the Government can appoint only three directors out of a total of seven, and cannot appoint the managing director. That agreement was made by an anti-Labour government, and it speaks for itself. Honorable members opposite are endeavouring to shelve their own responsibility and to cover up their lack of a constructive policy. They would have the people of this country believe that Labour has been responsible for every undesirable feature of governmental administration. The Opposition parties should be ashamed to talk about helping the United Kingdom because they themselves have shown a poor spirit towards the Old Country. Just because they do not like the Attlee Government, and particularly Sir Stafford Cripps, they have endeavoured to show that responsibility for the shortage of petrol in this country lies with the British authorities. We on this side of the chamber are just as anxious as are honorable members opposite to lift petrol rationing in Australia. Every member of this chamber would like to be able to go to his electors and announce that the petrol position had improved to such a degree that rationing could be lifted; but Opposition members would have the people believe that members of the Labour party do not favour the ending of restrictions.
Once again reflections have been cast upon waterside workers and upon the work of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. It has been suggested that much of the trouble on the waterfront in recent years would have been avoided had the industry been left under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. There is no foundation for such a statement.
– The industry had a better record when the Arbitration Court was in control.
– I say quite definitely that while the waterside workers were under the jurisdiction- of the Arbitration Court, far more time was lost by strikes than has been the case since the Stevedoring Industry Commission assumed control.
– Does the honorable member not believe in arbitration?
– Certainly I do. and I am glad that our arbitration system still functions.
– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.
.- I rise to pour some oil on troubled waters. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) wrongly believes that noise can counter logic. I assure him that it cannot do so. His entire argument was based on the assumption that the position is as the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has stated it to be. I suggest that he should read the oil agreement. If he does so, he will understand the opinions that have been expressed by the Opposition. Let me recapitulate what has happened. Earlier to-day, the leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) read a telegram that had been sent by Mr. Leask, New South Wales manager of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, to all agents of the company in that State instructing them to make the maximum sales of petrol. The matter was of sufficient moment to bring the Prime Minister into the debate because Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is a government-controlled organization. The Prime Minister’s statement that, subsequently, he called a conference of representatives of the oil companies and got them to agree to a certain line of action does not absolve Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited of its responsibility to the Government, and through the Government to the country. Let us examine the allegedly despicable statement which the honorable member for Hindmarsh says was made by the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale). The honorable member for Parramatta read portions of the oil agreement and drew certain conclusions from them. All the noise that has been made by the honorable member for Hindmarsh cannot detract from the logic of those conclusions. Let me refresh the mind of the honorable member for Hindmarsh on the terms of the agreement. It provides in Article 3 (d) (iv)-
That no action or question or decision relating to or affecting-
Any proposed sale of refined products on long contracts or under circumstances which might endanger the ability of the refinery company to meet requirements for consumption within Australia; shall be taken, determined or made without the consent of the Commonwealth as expressed through its representatives on the Board of Directors.
That means clearly that certain action cannot be taken without the consent of the Commonwealth. Would the Prime Minister and the honorable member for Hindmarsh have us believe that the Government would not be aware of decisions made by the board of directors about the distribution of petrol ? Are we to believe that the government-appointed directors were so recreant to their duty that they did not advise the Prime Minister of the company’s intention to boost sales of petrol throughout New South Wales as soon as rationing was lifted?
– Did the directors authorize the sending of that telegram?
– The directors lay down the policy of the company. If the Prime Minister was not informed of the company’s proposed sales campaign, the Government’s representatives on the board of directors were recreant to their duty, and should be called upon by the Prime Minister to explain their position. I maintain that the only conclusions that the honorable member for Parramatta could draw from the remarks made by the Prime Minister were that the right honorable gentleman was quibbling, that he must have been aware through the government-appointed directors that certain action was contemplated, and that he deliberately misled the country when he said that, as the Government could appoint only three directors out of seven, it could not be claimed that Commonwealth OilRefineries Limited was governmentcontrolled. The Prime Minister must be aware that a clause of that nature is contained in the agreement, and that three directors appointed by this Government to watch the Commonwealth’s interests must report to him any departure from policy, particularly such a departure as is likely to affect the distribution of petrol throughout the Commonwealth.
However, we recognize the technique. When the High Court declared invalid the Government’s original banking legislation, the Prime Minister immediately took action to nationalize banking. When the rents and prices referendum was defeated, the right honorable gentleman withdrew the subsidies. When petrol rationing was declared invalid by the High Court, the Prime Minister blinked at the government-controlled company, Commonwealth OilRefineries Limited, forcing up the sale of petrol in order to create the very chaos which, he said, would result from the abolition of petrol rationing. So, we see the technique, and I recapitulate. When the High Court declared the Government’s banking legislation invalid, the Prime Minister, out of sheer pique, attempted to nationalize the trading banks. When the Government lost the rents and prices referendum, the right honorable gentleman, again out of sheer pique, withdrew the subsidies. Now that the High Court has declared petrol rationing invalid, he has connived, or winked, at the governmentcontrolled organization endeavouring to boost sales of petrol so that subsequently he can say, “ Aha, what didI tell you? Supplies of petrol are short. I told you what would happen if the Commonwealth lost the right to control petrol rationing “. All the time, the Prime Minister knew that the government organization, Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, was endeavouring to bring about the conditions for which he has blamed the judgment of the High Court. Knowing the technique of this Government, honorable members must admit that I have arrived at the logical conclusion. The precedent has been established in regard to banking and the control of rents and prices, and the Prime Minister has followed that precedent slavishly in respect of petrol rationing. In making those remarks, I have been trying to pour a little oil on the troubled waters, and I am certain that I have succeeded in convincing the honorable member for Hindmarsh that my view is correct.
The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) submitted an extraordinarily sound case which called for a reply. But -he Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has not attempted to answer the allegations, or to meet the challenges made by the honorable member for Fawkner when stating his case. I would not blame the honorable member if he were to repeat his speech. However, I suppose that he would be subjected to the same cavalier treatment as he has already experienced in this debate, because the Minister has no answer to his allegations. The honorable member for Hindmarsh, who is full of noise, has tried to destroy the logic of the speech by the honorable member for Fawkner who was merely attempting to impress his points upon the mad of the Minister.
. -The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) and the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) are intoxicated with the exuberance of their own verbosity. I had no intention of engaging in this debate until I heard their remarks about petrol rationing. I am sure that every motorist in Australia is delighted that the High Court has declared invalid the Commonwealth’s regulations relating to petrol rationing. However, that delight emanates from a selfish outlook. Every one of us detests rationing, because its prolongation reminds us of the war and the sufferings of people during the war. However, the Chifley Government has continued petrol rationing for no other reason than to assist the people of the United Kingdom. It is the Government’s policy to give as much help to the British people as it possibly can do, because of the great work they performed in the war and the debt that we owe to them for their war effort on our behalf.
The High Court, in considering an appeal by a person against his conviction on a charge of having committed a breach of the petrol rationing regulations, has decided that the Commonwealth no longer has power to ration supplies of petrol to users. Some of us, who have studied the ase, were not surprised when the High
Court announced its decision. As the Prime Minister has stated, lawyers are not always right. Even prominent King’s Counsel may give conflicting opinions on a case. - A person may lose a case in the Supreme Court of New South Wales after prominent judges in that jurisdiction have given profound consideration to the matter; but, on appeal, the High Court may reverse the decision of the State Supreme Court. How was the Prime Minister to know in advance that the High Court would declare the petrol rationing regulations invalid? The right honorable gentleman could not read the minds of the justices of the High Court, and he had no way of finding out in advance what their decision would be. The honorable member for Parramatta said that, had the progress of the case been watched, the Government might have known what the High Court would decide. It is true that if a person is present in court during argument and hears the comments from the bench, he may sometimes gain an idea of how the court will decide the case under consideration.
Mx. Archie Cameron. - Perhaps the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) can tell honorable members what the Privy Council’s decision will be in the Banking case.
– I have not discussed that matter with the AttorneyGeneral yet, but I have a shrewd suspicion that he may be able to give us a lead. Lawyers, who are accustomed to the courts, know that their conjecture about a decision is often astray. Once the court has reserved its decision and considers the case for days, weeks or even months, some of the views that have been expressed during the hearing are often reversed. It cannot reasonably be claimed that the Prime Minister should have known in advance that the High Court would declare the petrol rationing regulations invalid. Even if he had known what the decision would be, what is the complaint against him?
– The complaint is that he kept in force a law which he knew was not valid.
– As I have often said in this chamber, the High Court plays a most important part in the government of this country, as the founders of the Constitution meant it to do, and the High Court now has upon its own head the responsibility in regard to the abolition of petrol rationing. The Chifley Government, in continuing to ration petrol supplies, was actuated by patriotic motives, and a desire to help the people of Great Britain. For some time, I held the view that there was sufficient petrol in the country to justify the abolition of rationing. One garage proprietor has informed me that, since the disappearance of rationing, he has not experienced a great rush by motorists for extra petrol. He rj*’ stated that before the end of last monia, his customers asked him to hold 500 gallons of petrol for them for this month and handed him the unused petrol tickets. 1 know that the black market must have absorbed many millions of. gallons of petrol. I have never met any prominent man in the community who wanted to drive his motor car to Melbourne, Adelaide or Brisbane but was not able quickly to get hold of sufficient petrol tickets to enable him to go. Petrol rationing can be abolished as the control of the prices of second-hand cars was abolished. It was a law that had no effect because the people despised it and would not take any notice of it. That applies equally to the control of property values in New South Wales. Realization of that fact will be forced on the people in charge. The law is useless, because 99 per cent, of the vendors and purchasers are disobeying it. The High Court made its decision on the ground that, although the Australian Government had power in war-time, for defence purposes, to control the sale and distribution of petrol and, although it had the power to wind up the war effort and then to unwind it the time must come when the unwinding process must cease. The Chief Justice said long ago, “ You do not cut off the war power with a guillotine; it must end gradually “. It was argued that as the war had ended in 1945, petrol rationing, in the view of the Hight Court was no longer required and we were back again in the halcyon days of peace and, therefore, the Australian Government no longer had authority, under its defence power, to ration petrol. I daresay that we can have some doubt about the validity of butter and tea rationing. If butter rationing goes, can the Government be blamed if the people of Great Britain get less butter? That will be the responsibility of the High Court if it terminates such rationing, and the High Court must accept its responsibility in the matter. I do not think that the High Court’s decision on petrol has any political significance whatever. We continued petrol rationing for patriotic reasons. The High Court has decided against us and petrol rationing falls to the ground. I am not displeased. On the public platform before the 1943 general election, 1 said to the people that when the war was over, all the war-time regulations must end. I thought the best policy for the governments of Australia to apply was to end the war-time regulations as soon as they could do so. Of course, the Australian Government found itself in the matter of petrol rationing on the horns of a dilemma. Had it ceased petrol rationing and done what it had promised the people it would do, it would have put the British people in the position of having to spend dollars to give us the extra petrol that we wanted. If the decision of the High Court results in more petrol being brought into Australia, the Government cannot be blamed. However, I am not sure that more petrol will have to be brought into Australia. We shall have to wait for a few weeks to see what the position is before we shall know whether any more petrol will need to be imported. On the public holiday in Sydney yesterday, 1 bought petrol at a garage that usually has a big sale of petrol. The proprietor informed me that it had been a very dull week-end and that, far from having sold more petrol, he had not sold’ as much as he had sold on the occasion of a previous public holiday. I cannot understand it. Perhaps people have petrol hoarded in 44-gallon drums. They may have been using that petrol.
– Cars were jammed on the roads in Sydney.
– There was more traffic on the roads. From my inquiries, however, it seemed that motorists did not buy any more petrol than usual, at any rate, from the garages at which I made inquiries.
A great deal has been said by the honorable member for Wentworth and the honorable member for Parramatta about the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and the telegrams that were sent on the 10th June to its petrol distributors. It has been said that the company was encouraging people to use more petrol. Those telegrams were confidential messages to the distributors. They were not intended to be published. I would remind the honorable member for Wentworth and the honorable member for Parramatta that the evening newspapers in all capital cities of Australia on the day or the day after the High Court announced its decision carried half-page advertisements on behalf of the petrol companies. I directed attention to that at the time, and said that the petrol companies were losing no time in advertising their products.. Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is a business organization. The general manager has the responsibility of selling petrol. He is a live-wire business man. Why should he not push his products? Was it not the natural thing to do? Do honorable gentlemen opposite think that the manager of the company in Sydney, Mr. Leask had instructions from the Government? He never consults the Government.
– He consults the directors, surely ?
– He does not consult his directors about publishing an advertisement in the newspapers. I am certain that he did not consult the directors about sending the telegrams which requested that his company’s products should be pushed. As a live-wire, he saw when petrol rationing ended his product would be left behind in the race unless he pushed its sale, and advertised it. So he did the reasonable thing, and sent telegrams to his distributors which asked that they should push the products, and stated that he would have petrol for them if they required it. Why that matter should have been raised by the honorable member for Wentworth and the honorable member for Parramatta, I do not know. It was just a red herring dragged across the trail and it had nothing to do with the debate. The Prime Minister made it clear to honorable members that the Government did not control the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. He said that it had a majority of the shares.
– As a lawyer, does the honorable member not agree that that should give it control?
– The Prime Minister said that the Government had contributed 51 per cent, of the capital. Knowing the Prime Minister, and having heard him make his statement, I accept it without question.
– The honorable member may know the Prime Minister, but not the oil agreement.
– The honorable member for Parramatta read an excerpt or two from the oil agreement, but I ask honorable members not to forget that the Prime Minister said that the Labour Government had not appointed the directors of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and that they had been appointed by a conservative government. The directors, having been appointed, govern the company. No doubt, it is within the power of the Government to make suitable changes in the directorate, and, no doubt, after thi? debate, suitable changes will be made.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member’s time hae expired.
, - There does not seem to be much agreement on the Government side of the chamber about the petrol situation. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) said that the matter was highly political, but the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Williams) said there was no political significance in it. Therefore honorable members opposite are not united in their thoughts on the subject. I agree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh that this question is a highly political one. Some time ago the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) produced facts and figures which showed clearly that petrol rationing could be abolished, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) would have nothing to do with that proposition. Later, the High Court ruled that petrol rationing by the Australian Government was invalid. It may be that, without rationing, no more petrol will be consumed in Australia than was consumed under rationing ; but, on the other hand, consumption may increase, if the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) is right, by 10 or 20 per cent. If more petrol is used and imports remain at their present level, some Australian people will have to go without petrol. What does the Prime Minister intend to do? Does he intend to adhere to what he said when the Leader of the Australian Country party argued that petrol rationing could be abolished and keep petrol imports at their present level? Does he intend to thus allow a chaotic position to occur if consumption increases, or does he intend to permit greater quantities of petrol to be imported ?
The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction gave some figures to the committee in an endeavour to show the drain upon our dollar resources that is caused by the importation of essential articles from the United States of America. He said that in 1947-48 imports- of machinery including motor chassis cost us £5,000,000. tractors £3.000,000 and spare parts £5,000,000. While the honorable gentleman was speaking, I asked, by way of interjection, “ What amount in dollars, did the Convair aircraft cost ? “, and he replied that he did not want to deal with that subject then ; but he was, in fact, dealing with it at that very moment. The cost of the Convair aircraft had been camouflaged by their inclusion in the figures relating to machinery. When the honorable gentleman dealt with tractors, which are just as much machines as aeroplanes, he referred to them by their correct name. He has said that he would rather we imported tractors than the :goods that honorable members on this side of the chamber are always wanting to be brought into this country from America. What are the goods that we require? They are farm tractors. When the Government announced its intention of importing aircraft into Australia, I immediately objected and pointed out that in the wheat-growing areas in my electorate and through out the Commonwealth more and more tractors were required. The Government has argued that if we import an extra few million pounds’ worth of petrol into this country we shall be robbing Great Britain. Can the Government calculate the value of the assistance of which it has deprived the British people by not importing “sufficient numbers of tractors? If primary producers had the tractors that they required, the production of primary products would be greater than it is. If more petrol were brought into this country and properly used, Great Britain would be helped and not hindered by the consequent increase of the production of foodstuffs. It has been pointed out that Great Britain wants meat from the Argentine. Australia could supply all kinds of things if the Government would assist our primary producers to achieve greater production. We want tractors and not aircraft.
– The honorable gentleman must connect his remarks with the proposed vote for the Department of Shipping and Fuel.
– I am answering the statements that have been made by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. Surely I can do that in a great free country such as this. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has spoken of the propaganda in which he suggests that honorable members on this side of the chamber are indulging and has said, that that is the stuff that we want to give to the people. Petrol is the stuff that we want to give to the people. If more petrol were made available in Australia production would be increased, and we could then help Great Britain more effectively than we are doing now. I have revealed to the committee the way in which the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction concealed the figures in relation to aircraft imports by describing aircraft as machinery. Why did not the honorable gentleman come out into the open and admit that the aircraft which have been brought into this country will not produce a pound of wool or a bushel of wheat?
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable gentleman must connect his remarks with the department that is under discussion.
– The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has said that we are getting all the petrol that we can get from non-dollar sources. On what ground does he hase that statement ? The Leader of the Australian Country party has produced evidence that more petrol can be obtained from non-dollar sources than is now being obtained from them. We know that New Zealand has a better petrol quota per capita than Australia has. [ do not wonder that Great Britain is not getting all the foodstuffs that we could send there and that the Australian people are dissatisfied with the adminis- trai ion of this Government.
– I wish to refer briefly to a matter nhat seems to be agitating honorable gentlemen opposite. I believe that all the discussion on the subject of petrol which has occurred this afternoon and this evening is really futile. The recent decision of the High Court is that the Australian Government no longer has power to ration petrol in Australia. The effect of the decision was not, as honorable gentlemen opposite are attempting to suggest, that petrol rationing is not necessary. Is petrol rationing necessary? The Prime Minister has said that he believes that it is necessary in order to ensure the safety of our economy and that >f Great Britain, which are linked together. Long before the decision of the High Court was given, the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) and his satellites were going up and down the country stating that petrol rationing in Australia was no longer necessary. As a matter of fact, the right honorable gentleman hailed the High Court’s decision as a vindication of his point of view. He regarded it as a great compliment to himself. I do not think that his concern is for the economy of this country or that of Great Britain. He seems more concerned with the profits of the great oil companies of this country. I make that charge. I wonder what he is getting for it. The right honorable gentleman is supposed to be the leader of the primary producers of this country.
He must know full well what effect the abolition of petrol rationing will have upon Australia and Great Britain. I consider this question from the point of view of the farmer. If Great Britain goes down, so shall we, because Great Britain provides us with our greatest market. It is facing one of the greatest financial problems with which it has everbeen confronted. It is in debt all over the world, but honorable gentlemen opposite apparently desire to plunge it further into debt. Why are they so irresponsible?’ They are self-confessed hypocrites. For a long time the members of the Opposition have been talking of the necessity for us to help Great Britain, and have accused the Government of not sendingsufficient quantities of foodstuffs there. They say that they want the farmers to have the” right to fill up the petrol tanks of their motor cars at any time they wish to do so. There are 1,500,000 people in Sydney and 1,250,000 people in Melbourne. The motorists among them will fill their tanks first. By the time they have bought all they want there will be little left for people in such country areasas those in which the honorable member for Wimmera and I live. The responsibility for petrol rationing is now right in the laps of the State Premiers. Will they face up to that responsibility? No. Most likely they will say, “ Here is an open go. First come, first served “. The honorable member for Wimmera says that we should produce more food. The Government has kept that object in view throughout the period of petrol rationing. Never has the primary producer had to go without sufficient petrol to enable him to sow his crop, reap his harvest, or increase his area under crop whenever he sought to do so. Not once has an application for extra fuel for food production been refused. Many a time has the Government had to reduce the private allowance to individuals so that primary producers and other essential users of liquid fuel could have adequate supplies. Honorable members opposite acclaim th* decision of the High Court as a vindication of the policy thai they have advocated on behalf of the oD companies. The economy of the country and the future of Great Britain - which is faced with a great crisis, as members of the Australian Country party must know, or would know if they were not irresponsible - do not matter to honorable members opposite. They seek to mislead the public for selfish political purposes. They have hailed the High Court’s decision as a victory for themselves, claiming that the Government inflicted hardship upon the people by continuing to ration petrol. The truth is that the Government has been safeguarding the people and looking to their future welfare. I remind the honorable member for Wimmera, who talks about food production, that we must pay for our petrol with dollars or gold. The United Kingdom Government has cut to the bone the ration for the British people. Private motor cars are almost immobilized there. Yet the honorable member wants us, who have had plenty throughout Britain’s lean years, to throw a further strain upon that country’s resources. No man who had a legitimate claim was refused a ration of petrol for essential food production under this Government’s scheme. [ have not for years heard a genuine complaint about unfairness. The only wm plaint that I have received recently came from a person who objected to being asked to fill in a form when he applied to the Liquid Fuel Board for an additional allowance of more than 100 gallons of petrol a month.
The decision of the High Court has not deprived the Commonwealth of its power to restrict imports. Therefore, our imports will not be increased. The honorable member for Wimmera knows that as well as I do. Who will get the lion’s share if there is no system of rationing? This Government will have no power to ensure that primary producers and other essential users will obtain what, they need. There will be no authority to reserve supplies for coal distributors and wood carters to Melbourne, for instance. Does the honorable gentleman want all the petrol to go to pleasure seekers? He and his colleagues must (make up their minds where they stand on this issue.
– The honorable member should make up his own mind.
– I have made it up. I stand right behind the Government. If non-essential users are allowed to buy petrol without restraint, farmers will have to go without fuel for their farming machinery. Some people will buy great stocks of petrol and a black market will develop. The economy of Great Britain may crash. What would happen to Australia then? The United Kingdom provides the principal market for our wool, butter, meat and other primary products, and if it does not survive its present crisis Australia will be hard hit. I wonder whether the Opposition’s attitude on this problem arises from the fact that a Labour government is in power in Great Britain.
– That is the reason.
– That, plus the financial considerations for the election fund.* of the Opposition parties that are paid in by the oil companies. The Australian Country party especially works- in the interests of those companies, although it claims that it represents the primary producers more effectively than does the Labour party. The oil companies will rob the primary producers as they will rob anybody else. Why are those honorable gentlemen such strong advocates foithe private oil companies? I hope that » lot of people will ask them that question They are completely irresponsible in thismatter. They say that there is no necessity for petrol rationing and that even person should be allowed to buy as much petrol as he needs. Any additional imports of petrol must be paid for with dollars, and while the Labour party is in power it is responsible for conserving our dollar resources s<that funds may be reserved for the purchase of capital goods from dollar countries. The Government has planned for the allocation of dollars equivalent to about £10,000,000 for the purchase of plant needed to modernize the coal mines. Coal-cutting machines and equipment needed to increase the rate of construction of houses must be imported bcause they cannot be manufactured in Australia. Honorable members opposite, taking only a short-term view, would allow the dollar funds needed for those purchases to be exhausted by increasing our petrol imports. They are interested only in the demands of pleasure seekers, who want to go to places where they do not need to go. Thai ia how our petrol and our dollar resources will bo wasted. Great Britain has bad to reduce its meagre petrol ration in order that .it may send petrol to Argentina in exchange for meat. Yet honorable members opposite would reduce that ration further! I whole-heartedly support the Government’s policy, and I believe that all Australians, with the exception of a few selfish and irresponsible people like the members of the Australian Country party, also support it. The only conclusion that I am able to draw from the conduct of members of the Australian Country party on this issue is that somewhere there is a contact between them and the oil companies, which hope to make a great profit quickly from the lifting of petrol rationing without any regard for the effect of their conduct upon the economy of Australia and that of Great Britain.
– I want to reply very briefly to the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McLeod), who said that the High Court had decided that petrol rationing was invalid. That statement was true. The honorable gentleman also said that this Parliament could not do anything about the High Court’s decision, and then he turned to members of the Australian Country party, looked directly at me, and said, “ What are you going to do about it?” He had just declared that, under the Constitution, this Parliament could do nothing about the abolition of petrol rationing. When such loose thinking as that is put into words, it scarcely needs a reply. However, I definitely refute the. honorable member’s assertion that the Australian Country party is linked with the big oil companies. Of course nobody in Australia will believe such statements. They are too ridiculous to be worth discussing. Members of the Australian Country party have continually fought for greater production so that the people of the United Kingdom may have more food and we have tried to force the Government to encourage production. The fact is that individual citizens have done more to help the British people by sending food parcels to them than this Government has done.
– Order! I should like the honorable member to connect his re marks with the proposed vote for the Department of Shipping, and Fuel.
– I do so by saying that we believe that the supply of foodstuffs to the United Kingdom will not be threatened in any way if the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) decides to permit the importation into Australia of extra supplies of petrol. If the Government would only pursue a policy designed to increase primary production and permit the use of additional petrol in the right place and in the right manner, Great Britain would benefit from it.
.- The discussion of the proposed vote for the Department of Shipping and Fuel has covered a wide field, but I shall refer to only two of the many subjects that have been discussed. The first of those is petrol rationing. We have heard a great deal from the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) and honorable members who support the Government about the supposedly vital necessity for restricting Australia’s imports of petrol in order to help Great Britain through its economic crisis. Those honorable gentlemen have cast a slur upon members of the Opposition by declaring that we are completely irresponsible in this matter and are not really concerned about the difficulties that confront the Old Country. 1 throw that ‘assertion back in the teeth of every man who has made it. I think the committee will agree that during the last two or three years proposals to help Britain that have been made in this chamber, have usually originated and, unfortunately, continued to reside in, the Opposition. We have made a number of suggestions regarding positive way? in which the Government could do something to help the Old Country. It has been notable that whenever a situation has arisen in which it has become necessary for Australia to help Britain to save dollars or other resources, the first approach and, unfortunately, usually theonly approach made by the Prime Minister, has been to restrict imports to Australia. He has entirely overlooked a better way of achieving the same result without causing needless upset to the country’s economy. We could produce goods and? either export them to Britain, thereby saving dollar expenditure by Britain for similar goods from America, or else we could export the goods direct to the United States or other dollar countries, thereby earning dollars for the dollar pool, and in that positive way help to relieve the dollar shortage of the Old Country. Thus it is with petrol. The Prime Minister makes one approach and one approach only. He tells the people of this country that Australia must get along with less and less petrol. He does not go to any pains to explain how much of the petrol imported to Australia is used. He does not tell the people that because of his own muddling in connexion with the coal industry millions of gallons of petrol are used for purposes for which coal should be used. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy) represents in this Parliament an area which is interested in motor bodybuilding, and he knows that at the present time thousands of motor car bodies are being transported by motor vehicles because there is no shipping available to do the job, either because there is not sufficient coal available or because the rate of loading and discharge is so slow that it has reduced the availability of shipping. Last year in Western Australia we had an epic example of a Labour government’s muddling. A Labour government had held office in that State for years, and had allowed the State railways to deteriorate to such an extent that they proved to be unable to transport superphosphate to country districts, and the Government actually had to subsidize motor transport to do the job thereby using tens of thousands of gallons of petrol for a purpose which could have been very well served by the railways had they been well conducted.
The Australian Government now intends to enter the shipping industry, and to build ships designed to burn coal. Of course, if there is not sufficient coal the Government will convert the ships into oil-burning vessels. Oil fuel costs three or four times as much as coal fuel and in addition comes from dollar sources. The Prime Minister has been very silent on those matters. He tells the people that petrol rationing is necessary to help Britain, but he does not tell them the alternatives that could very well be adopted, which would be of very much more use to Great Britain without causing any restrictions in Australia. He does not do so, because his Government has not the courage to face up to problems as it should do. That is why we hear all this flapdoodle from the Government. This afternoon we heard a very short speech by the Prime Minister which, I am sure, he already regrets having made. When he suggested thai something was revealed by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) concerning an action of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, he disowned all responsibility for the action and said that the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited was a company that was established by a conservative government. That is not a fact, but it will pass muster for one as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. He said that under the terms of the agreement relating to the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited the Government has no real control in its operations. The people of this country are fortunate that the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale”! looked up the actual terms of the agreement and showed, beyond all shadow of doubt, that the Prime Minister was completely inaccurate in the impression thai he tried to convey to the people in respect of the Government’s control or authority over the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, One Minister after another rises in this chamber and tries to tell the people of this country that we, on the Opposition side, who have had very little to say about the actual rationing of petrol, are unjustly attacking the Government on that issue. The Leader of the Australian Country party has suggested that the amount of petrol entering Australia might very well be increased, and I consider that the case he advanced for that increase has not yet been answered by the Prime Minister, who stated that the information that he has on the subject is of a confidential nature and that he therefore cannot reveal it to the people. That is a very poor excuse. I suggest that the British Government, if it considers that the position ia bo serious as to require such restrictions and controls in Australia, would be more than pleased that the people of Australia who, after all, must in the long run sanction its Government’s actions and who will have an opportunity soon of passing judgment on the actions of the Government, should be fully informed of the reason for the restrictions.
I shall refer briefly to the subject of shipping, because we have heard a number of statements regarding this industry, some of which have been extraordinary. The honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) made an extraordinary statement this afternoon in which she told the House that she had been informed that certain waterside workers had been told by somebody - ihe did not specify by whom, although the inference was that it was by the shipowners - that there was no need to hurry with this or that job, or, in other words, that the ship-owners themselves were deliberately sabotaging the coastal shipping trade of Australia. That is too ridiculous even to be given a second thought. Before the war the freight rate between Sydney and Melbourne was 27s. a ton for general cargo, whereas to-day it costs 30s. 5d. a ton to load and unload cargo moving between these ports. That is to say, the whole of the loading, unloading and carriage of goods by sea between Melbourne and Sydney before the war cost 3s. a ton less than loading and unloading alone now does. I should like honorable members to consider that fact closely and I shall therefore repeat it. To-day, as a result of the establishment of the Stevedoring Industry Commission with its very wide powers, and with very rigid controls over the waterfront, it costs 30s. 5d. a ton to load and unload -cargo at Sydney and Melbourne whereas before the war, when there were none of these fantastic conditions, the shipowners could carry the freight from Melbourne to Sydney for 27s. a ton, presumably at a profit. The whole thing is fantastic. We were told only to-day by the Prime Minister that increases in wages costs were a reason for increased freight charges. I do not question -that. I believe that we should endea- vour to give all people who are working on the waterfront, and also those engaged in rural and secondary industries, th, highest wages and best possible conditions. But we have to realize that unless these improvements in wages and conditions result in greater output the balance of our economy suffers. The Prime Minister has stated that freights have already been increased by about 15s. a ton. according to the type of - cargo. It if interesting to observe that higher rate* were required not only by the private companies but also by the Government. The Prime Minister has admitted thai governmental activities in the field of shipping were no more successful during and immediately after World War II. than when the Government entered th, shipping field during World War I. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr Holt) has pointed out that during th, last three years the Australian Shipping Board has lost about £11,000,000 and that it is anticipated that a big loss will be incurred this year. These losses have been incurred by subsidies to the shippers of freight in thi3 country, not by subsidies to the private shipping companies, as was suggested by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) During the war the whole of the ship, on the coast were under charter. Thi Government fixed what it considered to b> a fair charter and then charged appropriate freights to civilian and service users. Although profits were made on those charter rates in the early stageof the war, towards the end of thi war, those profits disappeared rapidly. Following the cessation of hostilities large losses were incurred bi the Government. Nevertheless, as honorable members know, legislation wairecently passed to provide for the establishment of another government shipping line. Presumably that line will enter into fair competition to ensure thai shippers on the coast of Australia will be charged freight rates on a reasonable basis. The expenditure to date, however, suggests that the Government will not 1* able to run its ships, as efficiently and cheaply as private enterprise runs ii shipping services and that ultimately those ships will cost the taxpayer? infinitely more than the shippers ure now paying for their- freight in private ships. The people of this country are already realizing that the most expensive luxury that they or the people of any other country can indulge in is that of socialistic enterprise. That fact is being forced home in a very unpleasant manner to the people of Great Britain. Since the railways of that country were nationalized freight rates have been increased 100 per cent.
– Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.
, - This afternoon I urged that the Government should, provide adequate chipping facilities for Queensland, par.ticularly for the river trade of Maryborough and Bundaberg. Although both die honorable member for Capricornia (“Mr. Davidson) and I have made representations in connexion with this matter frequently during the past months, to date a final reply has not been received from ho Minister for Shipping and Fuel Senator Ashley). In view of the everincreasing magnitude of trade I impress upon the Government the urgent necessity >f assuring contractors, business people, and manufacturers in those districts hat they will be provided with a regular shipping service. Such facilities should at least be equal to those that were provided in the immediate pre-war period. I hope that the Government will make available to those ports the ship built by Walker’s Limited that has been held for allotment until the shipping board was appointed. Such an alloca…. would alleviate the lifting of overdue cargoes from Newcastle and Sydney and make possible more expeditious reshipment from Brisbane, where cargoes sometimes lie on the wharfs for weeks awaiting i vessel.
I deplore the accusations that were made by the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McLeod) against the Leader of the Australian Country party Mr. Fadden) during the temporary absence from the chamber of that right Honorable gentleman. The charges were u-ade in connexion with the petrol industry. The honorable member BUKgested that the right honorable gentle man’s endeavours, which were designed to bring about the abolition of petrol rationing in Australia, were motivated by a desire to get a cut out of the profits of the petrol companies and so secure funds for the forthcoming election campaign. That was a mean and contemptible accusation.
On many occasions, and as -recently as last Friday, I have urged the Government to secure for Australia some rights to oil bearing areas in adjacent foreign countries where petrol is available, as ha* been done by Great Britain and Canada Even before the cessation of hostilities. I urged the Government in this House to take action to secure for Australia some proved oil-bearing territory, to save the people of this country from paying ever-increasing prices to the great foreign oil companies that have helped the Government to inflict petrol inconveniences upon the public, and which were making millions of pounds in excess profits each year. Coes that indicate that the party that I support if “ smooging” to those companies to secure money to meet election expenses? It ie indeed a pity that the mind of the honorable member for Wannon is so small and “his focus on the activities of other people so ineffective as to cause him to express the view that the Leader of the Australian Country party was actuated by such a base motive. As I have already said, I have been very active in my endeavours to get the Government to move to acquire rights over oil-bearing areas in the interests of Australia, and to save the people of this country being unduly ribbed by the big petrol combines of the world. With the daytoday expansion of industry we are becoming more and more dependent on petrol. It looks as if that dependence is increasing as the coal-miners of NewSouth Wales lose interest in the development of Australia. I hope that the Government will do something about shipping . services on the coast of Queensland, and that it will also take action to reduce the high price charged for petrol by the big oil companies.
.- I should not have risen to discuss a matter which has already been so fully discussed were it not for the misrepresentation practised by certain Government supporters. The honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McLeod) made an extraordinary statement which convinced me that probably the High Court should have consulted him before it gave its decision in the petrol rationing case. I am convinced, moreover, that people would rather go without petrol than listen to the honorable member. He rightly said that the decision of the court meant only that the Commonwealth had no power to ration petrol ; it did not mean that rationing was no longer required. However, one of his colleagues, with a more realistic outlook, said that, from the inquiries he had made, he was convinced that petrol rationing had ceased to be of any use. He said that no more petrol was being used now than when rationing was in force, and he added that, with the elimination of black marketing in petrol coupons, there was reason to assume that less petrol would be used. He was probably right. When clothing was rationed, people bought clothes so as to use up their coupons, and 1 have no doubt that many people did the same in regard to petrol. The honorable member for Wannon was hard put to it to find a reason for attacking the Opposition, and particularly his bete noir, the Australian Country party, but eventually he worked the argument round so that he could blame us for the elimination of rationing. He made the extraordinarily unfair statement that the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) was gloating over the verdict of the High Court because it vindicated the policy which he had been advocating for some time. Although it seems to have been established that the abolition of rationing has not resulted in an increased demand for petrol, the honorable member claimed that the satisfaction of the Leader of the Australian Country party with the verdict of the court was due to the fact that it would swell the profits of the oil companies, and that he would probably get his cut. The honorable member stated that his approach to this matter was entirely nonpolitical, yet he made charges of that kind. He professed to be particularly anxious about Britain’s economy, and said that the chief purpose of petrol rationing was to help Great Britain. If
Britain were to go to the wall economically as the result of the High Court’s decision, what were we going to do about it, he asked? Just previously, he had said that the High Court had given its decision, and that we could not do anything about it. I remind the House that we on this side of the committee are just as solicitous for the welfare of Great Britain as are honorable members opposite, and we have a more practical plan for assisting Great Britain than by the saving of a little petrol. The Leader of the Australian Country party showed last week that Britain was trading to Argentina over 5,000,000 tons of fuel oil each year in exchange for meat, which was being supplied at double the price for which Australia could supply it. We are not satisfied with that policy. If only one-third of a million tons more petrol is needed in Australia to remove the need for rationing, then let the extra petrol be imported and used to assist in the production of food for Britain. The advantage to Britain would far outweigh any dollar difficulty that could arise out of the purchase of the additional petrol.
– How long would it take before the importation of petrol was reflected in an increased production of food? People in Britain could die of starvation in the meantime.
– If we had an effective government that would make facilities available we could produce the additional food in one season. More petrol can be imported only by permission of the Australian Government, so that the total consumption of petrol in Australia can be increased only with the consent of the Government. The Government controls the allocation of dollars, and it can insist that the petrol is imported from sterling areas. Why, then, do honorable members opposite talk such nonsense about the adverse economic effect of the abolition of petrol rationing? As a matter of fact, the oil companies have asked the people not to panic, and have stated that plenty of petrol is available.
– They said something different at their meeting with the Prime Minister.
– It is clear that there is no need for panic. There is as much petrol in Australia now aa when rationing was in force, and we have been assured by a Government supporter that less petrol was used last week-end, even though it was a holiday week-end, than when rationing was in force. Let us give the system of free distribution a fair trial, and if it is found that Great Britain’s economy is being seriously affected, honorable members on this side of the committee will insist upon something being done to remedy the position. The attitude of Government supporters, however, is, “We support socialism, and to hell with the consequences “. That is not the policy of honorable members on this side of the committee. As I have said, we can help Britain more effectively in other ways than by saving a few gallons of petrol.
.- It is apparent from the speech of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) that, by passing the buck to the Government, the members of the Australian Country party are trying to excuse their attitude towards petrol rationing, and their lack of support for Great Britain in the tragic economic plight in which the British people find themselves. The honorable member for Gippsland claimed that the restoration of rationing would not help Britain to restore economic stability. Every dollar saved must be of some assistance to the people of Britain in recovering from the economic plight in which they find themselves. It is idle for members of the Opposition to say that the Government’s attitude is dictated by a desire to support a socialist Administration in Great Britain. The Australian Labour party has a much wider and broader outlook in international affairs. Irrespective of the political complexion of the Government of the United Kingdom, Labour would, because of the necessity to rebuild Great Britain and to assist the British people and the Empire generally, impose similar restrictions to those at present operating. It cannot be denied that members of the Australian Country party have adopted an antiBritish attitude-
Mr. Beale* interjecting,
– The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale), who waves more flags than any soldier every dreamt of doing, has attacked the Government because of its attempts to assist the people of Great Britain in their hour of need, and he has been supported, aided and abetted by members of the Australian Country party. I did not intend to participate further in this debate, but I could not permit a slur to be cast on the people of Great Britain and the efforts being made by Labour to assist them without making some reply. As the honorable member’ for Wannon (Mr. McLeod) pointed out this evening, primary producers, who require petrol for their livelihood, will in future have to run the gauntlet of the demands upon petrol of approximately 1,500,000 metropolitan consumers, who, thanks to the sound economic position of Australia under the administration of Labour, have the money to purchase both motor care and petrol. If the supply of petrol is not increased at the source it may happen that before long primary producers will not be able to obtain sufficient petrol to operate their vehicles, because it is a natural consequence of laisser-faire that those who have the money get what they want. It may not be long before members of the Australian Country party will be asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) to do something to move vehicles on farm properties. The mouthpieces of the monopolists, who have spoken, in this chamber to-night on behalf of the oil companies, will tell the people anything at all to further their short-range policy. However, the people are particularly wary just now of propaganda concerning petrol distribution, largely because of the manner in which they were misled by the opponents of the Government during the campaign which preceded the referendum on the control of rents and prices. The people to-day realize the disastrous consequences of accepting their advice. It must be remembered that the quantity of petrol imported into Australia will not be increased, because the quotas of the various Empire countries were fixed some time ago, when allocations of dollars were made. It follows, therefore, that all petrol consumers will not be able to obtain all the petrol that they desire, and that, in the nature of things, those consumers who have the most wealth will endeavour to obtain far more than their fair share. It i3 the plain duty of any government to ensure that people who have only limited purchasing power obtain their fair share. Supporters of the Government are just as anxious as are honorable members opposite to see the end of restrictions. At the same time, we do not want rationing to be terminated until all members of the community are properly provided for. I place on record that I deplore the attitude adopted by members of the Opposition, who are decrying the efforts made by this Government to assist the people of Great Britain to recover their economic stability. I also take this opportunity to warn our own people that although petrol rationing has been discarded by the Commonwealth on consequence of the recent judgment of the High Court they should remember that even greater difficulties may be encountered in the future in the distribution of petrol Members of the Opposition who have criticized the Government’s policy in this matter will not he of much assistance to the community if trouble is encountered in the distribution of petrol in the future. They have no sound knowledge of the position, such as that imparted to the Prime Minister by the Chancellor of the British Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, and it ill becomes them to complain that the present Government has retained control over the distribution of petrol for political purposes. The Government has maintained petrol rationing to conserve the broad interests of the people of the British Empire, and any one with an ounce of common sense must realize that the retention of restrictions or controls by any administration must inevitably be unpopular. It must be clear, therefore, that the reason why the Government has sought to retain controls is anything but political.
, - I had not intended to speak on this matter because the subject was magnificently dealt with by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) and the honorable member for
Parramatta (Mr. Beale). However, honorable members opposite have sought to defend the conduct of the manager in New South Wales of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited which is the Government’s own company. That individual is apparently a slick salesman, who attempted, to the detriment of the community, to heat other oil distributors in making sales of petrol when rationing was terminated. I believe that the Government should adopt a longrange view directed towards national selfsufficiency such as that advocated by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McBride). I consider that the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) correctly described the motive that hae actuated the Government in its attitude towards petrol consumption when he said that its slogan was, “ We support socialism and to hell with the consequences “.
What is the dollar situation, and bv what means may we eventually become independent of dollars? Consider, for a moment, the amount that we lose when we import English cigarettes, which are manufactured from American tobacco. Not only is the importer needlessly expending Empire dollars, but the development of the tobacco growing and manufacturing industry in this country is retarded,, and in that way possible avenues of employment to Englishmen, who might otherwise migrate to this country, are closed. Similarly, when we import cotton piece goods from the United . Kingdom, which have been manufactured from cotton grown in the United States of America, we retard the development of the cotton industry in this country and limit the opportunities for Englishmen who might migrate to Australia. I believe with the honorable member for Wakefield that eventually we shall develop our economy to the point of national self-sufficiency, and when that time comes we shall be independent of dollar currency. Every one who has given any though to the matter must have realized that, although the British Commonwealth is a colonial empire, the dominions of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are not succeeding in attracting British migrants. For example, Australia has an immediate market for approximately 120,000 bales of cotton, but the quantity of cotton produced in this country amounts only to 4,000 or 5,000 bales-
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Burke). - Order! Considerations such as those mentioned by the honorable member are only incidental to the proposed vote, and cannot be discussed in detail, but only in a broad aspect.
– We have an enormous potential market for sorghum, cotton and tobacco, and if sufficient man-power were available to develop the production of those commodities in the safe rainfall belt of north Australia our economy would become more independent of dollars. What led us to refer to the economic position of Great Britain and the effect of socialism on that country? During the last few weeks, I have spoken to a number of Englishmen who have run away from their country in order to seek freedom in Australia from the dictates of a socialist regime. This is what Englishmen have told me-
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order! I remind the honorable member that he is permitted to discuss dollars only in relation to the proposed vote for the Department of Shipping and Fuel.
– I point out to you, sir, that you are denying me the right to speak on the economic situation of the British people.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order! It is not the Chair, but the Standing Orders which prevent the honorable member from discussing any further such matters.
– I conclude, then, by warning the people of Australia that if they permit the present Government to follow the socialist lead of Morrison and Bevin in the United Kingdom they will be simply encouraging the onset of Parkinson’s disease, which is a form of creeping paralysis, in our body politic.
.- The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) and the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McLeod) accused members of the Opposition, and, in particular, members of the Australian Country party, of being anti-British, to repeat their phrase. I hardly need to state that members of the Opposition parties are just as mindful of the requirements of the people of Great Britain, and perhaps more so, as are members and supporters of the Government. From the speech delivered by the honorable member for Martin I should imagine that the Government realizes that its chickens are coming home to roost. The Government is therefore trotting out its bogy that the termination of petrol rationing and the transfer to the oil companies of responsibility for the distribution of liquid fuel will result in primary producers not obtaining their fair share. Of course, if such a thing did happen, the people of Australia generally would very soon realize their dependence on the primary producers, who furnish the nation’s bread and butter. If the Government is prepared to give way to the inordinate demands of the people of Melbourne and Sydney, as the honorable member for Martin and the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) would have it do. petrol supplies in the country would not last a week. Honorable members opposite have said that we are endeavouring’ to add to the hardships suffered by the people of Great Britain. After intensive research on the subject, the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) proved to honorable members and to the people generally that sufficient petrol was available to enable production in Australia to be increased without hindrance. The right honorable gentleman contended that only an additional one-third of a million tons of petrol was required annually and he appealed to the Government to consider that requirement in relation to the supply of 5,700,000 tons which the United Kingdom is making available to Argentina in order to obtain additional supplies of meat from that country. Only one-nineteenth of the petrol now being made available to Argentina is required to enable petrol rationing to be completely abolished in this country. Additional petrol would mean greater production. Honorable members opposite contend that we have no desire to bring about increased production. Where does the Government stand in relation to that increased . production? What has it done to bring about increased production? Country people need, not only additional petrol, but also agricultural machinery; but they are unable to obtain it.
– The best way to ensure that they shall be able to obtain their requirements of machinery is to spend less money on unessential petrol.
– Primary producers who furnish foodstuffs urgently required in the United Kingdom are crying out for machinery, but they are unable to obtain it. The Government attributes the shortage of agricultural machinery to the scarcity of coal and the consequent under-production of steel. Notwithstanding that contention, New Zealand has been able to obtain its requirements of steel from . Australia.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order! Steel is not covered by the proposed vote for the Department of Shipping and Fuel.
– I mentioned steel only in passing. It has been said by Government spokesmen that primary producers cannot obtain agricultural machinery because of the shortage of steel resulting from insufficient coal supplies. We contend that if steps were taken by the Government to ensure maximum coal production by guarding against absenteeism in the coal-mining industry and unwarranted stoppages in the coal mines, agricultural machinery could be obtained in sufficient quantities to meet all needs.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order! I again ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the proposed vote.
– Notwithstanding the fact that many oil-burning vessels are now in operation, the shortage of coal has its effect on the availability of shipping. If much needed machinery were made available to the primary producers additional quantities of petrol and petroleum products would also have to be made available. It appears to me that the Government is complacent about the coal shortages because it knows that if additional coal were made available to enable the manufacturers of agricultural machinery to achieve full production a corresponding increase would have to be made in the importation of petrol and petroleum products. Because of the had condition into which our railway systems have fallen many thousands of gallons of petrol and diesel oil are being used annually to transport superphosphate to country areas.
– When have primary producers been refused essential supplies of petrol?
– They have not been refused additional petrol, but they have had to work hard to get it. Many country people have had to use their meagre monthly petrol ration to travel to the nearest post office to obtain their petrol coupons. Some of them have had to travel distances, of from 50 to 60 miles in order to obtain their coupons. For some reason unknown, to people who live in remote rural areas, it has not been the practice of the rationing authorities to post coupons to them. If it is good enough for th, British Socialist Government to ship 5,700,000 tons of fuel oil annually to Argentina in order to obtain meat from that country at a price equal to double the price for which we could sell it, surely it is not unreasonable to demand that an additional quantity of petrol equal to one-nineteenth of that tonnage should be made available to Australia so that petrol rationing may be abolished and primary production may be expanded.
– How long would elapse before any appreciable expansion of primary production could be achieved by that means?
– In twelve months the increase would be appreciable. The Government pays lip service to the people of the United Kingdom, hut ii does not adopt practical methods of assisting them. The Leader of the Australian Country party went to a lot of trouble to obtain information concerning the petrol position and his case for the abolition of petrol rationing was nol satisfactorily answered by the Prime Minister or by any member of the Government. Honorable members opposite say that in making this demand we are anti-British. They go further and say that by his advocacy for the abolition of petrol rationing the Leader of the
Australian Country party has ensured that his party will have ample funds with which to fight the next election. They are well aware that that is a deliberate lie. This is election year and they are throwing as much mud at members as they possibly can. They will not delude the people who realize that the Government has not approached the problem of petrol rationing from the standpoint of its effect on the production of food for the British people.
– Later, we shall throw disinfectant, and not mud, at honorable members opposite.
– The right honorable gentleman should first make sure that he himself does not become contaminated. No valid reply has been made to the arguments that have been advanced by the Leader of the Australian Country party. Not one tittle of evidence has been brought to light. The Prime Minister has merely said that, with the approval of the British authorities, he will make available to the State premiers the confidential information that he has received from Sir Stafford Cripps. Members of this National Parliament apparently are not to be trusted with that information. If the States fall for the idea of taking over the administration of petrol rationing, knowing full well that the Commonwealth has power to restrict imports, they will be assuming a task which may affect them most detrimentally. At the same time, they will be absolving the Commonwealth Government of responsibility for its own maladministration. I agree with the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) that the petrol problem will iron itself out. The permanent abolition of rationing would eliminate much of the black marketing that has gone on in the past. Anybody knows that ration tickets could be purchased in capital cities for from1s, and 3s. for each gallon ticket. Where did the tickets come from ? Ugly and filthy rumours are being circulated about officials of the rationing administration. I do not believe them, but it is sufficient that they are being circulated. Recently a youth was prosecuted for an offence involving the illegal use of thousands of tickets. Forging gangs have been at work in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. All the petrol that has been obtained by forged tickets has been in excess of the authorized consumption. I am confident that much of the petrol that is being bought is not for current use.
-Would the honorable member be surprised to know that every oil company in Australia agrees that the abolition of rationing would increase consumption by 10 per cent?
-We have already been told that; but earlier this afternoon the Leader of the Australian Country party disclosed that Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited had done everything possible to boost petrol sales immediately the rationing regulations were invalidated by the High Court. The other companies advised people not to panic because they believe that normal trading would soon be restored. The public reaction to the abolition of petrol rationing will be the same as was its reaction to the abolition of clothes rationing.While rationing lasts holders of coupons feel impelled to redeem them at the end of each month. Many thousands of gallons have been bought at the end of each rationing period and stored in backyards. The people really do not want the petrol, but they buy it because they have tickets. If they have not the necessary money, they give the tickets to some one else whohas the money. Much of the petrol is not being used.While the abolition of rationing might lead to a slight increase in consumption, I believe that the major difficulties would iron themselves out.
Proposed vote agreed to.
Progress reported.
page 917
The following papers were presented : -
Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1949 -
No. 40 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.
No. 41 - Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union of Australia.
Commonwealth Public Service Act- Appointments - Department -
Labour and National Service- J.M.
Hitchcox.
Repatriation -R. Freak.
House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 June 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19490614_reps_18_202/>.