22nd Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. C.F. Adermann) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 3297
– Are there any questions without notice?
– I ask that all questions be placed on the noticepaper.
page 3297
– I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -
Passionfruit juice and pulp.
The Government has given careful consideration to the issues arising from the board’s findings. It considers that, in the absence of information on certain aspects of the problems involved, which could only be ascertained by a further Tariff Board inquiry, it would be inadvisable to adopt the board’s findings. The Tariff Board has been asked to have a further inquiry into whether assistance should be given to the production in Australia of passionfruit and passionfruit products and, if so found, the nature and extent of such assistance; also, whether, having regard to the Commonwealth’s responsibility to encourage and develop its Territories, the production of passionfruit and passionfruit products in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and their importation into the Commonwealth from that Territory should be given assistance and, if so found, the nature and extent of such assistance.
Mr.Calwell. - So they should be given assistance.
– The matter will be again considered by the Government when the board’s further report comes to hand.
Ordered to be printed.
page 3297
Mr.FAIRHALL(Pa terson- Minister for the Interior) [10.34]. - I move -
Thatthe bill be now read a second time.
The bill authorizes the Commonwealth to complete a housing agreement with the States in terms of the agreement presented as a schedule to the bill. It seems desiraable to point out that the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth in relation to housing are limited. Unless housing is for defence, or some other Commonwealth purpose, or within Commonwealth Territories as distinct from the States, provision could be made only by way of grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Commonwealth and States. Housing Agreement was instituted in 1945, so that housing funds available to the States, but provided by the Commonwealth, should be used in a manner which conforms, at least in part, to the policy designed by the Commonwealth. The 1945 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement now expiring expressed the policy of the Commonwealth at the time. in that it provided funds for thebuilding mainly of rental homes. The State governments became major landlords offering subsidized rents.
But the policy of the present Government is to encourage home ownership. We have given expression to this policy first in the amendment of the 1945 agreement under which tenants could purchase their homes upon favorable terms. However, the expiry of the 1945 agreement makes it now possible to write a new agreement, which I am confident will find ready acceptance with the vast majority of the Australian people. The difficulties of preparing an agreement which gives effect to Commonwealth policy, and which at the same time is acceptable to the States, should not be underrated. Not only do programmes and policies vary from State to State, but it is not to be expected that the Commonwealth would find ready acceptance of its attitude that, whilst it provides funds for the purposes of the agreement, it proposes to ensure that at least a reasonable proportion of those funds shall be used in a way which the Commonwealth believes to be in the best national interest.
The agreement contained in this bill includes some important and interesting features under which the Commonwealth provides the States with funds at a favorable interest rate. The States may use those funds for their own housing programmes by building houses for rent or for sale or both. At the same time, funds are provided through the States for the encouragement of home building primarily through building societies. There is thus preserved to both Commonwealth and State governments considerable areas of freedom for the expression of their individual policies. This Government finds every satisfaction in giving great assistance to private home ownership, especially when the specific reservation of funds for this purpose will, in addition, be applied in a manner which will actually multiply the number of homes to be produced. Some conflict of views between the Commonwealth and the States has delayed the signing of the agreement by the States. However, it is essential that the Government be authorized to continue payments under the 1945 agreement until the 30th June, 1956, and to execute a new agreement with the States to operate from that date. Et is necessary, therefore, that the approval of the Commonwealth Parliament be now obtained. There is every likelihood that the States will accept the agreement. Having made those remarks about the purposes of the agreement and the difficulties of achieving them, I believe this House will want to express its appreciation to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) whose continued patient effort has resulted in the bill being brought into the House at this time.
Although there is a tremendous unsatisfied demand for houses, it is interesting to note that in Australia to-day there sure. fewer people per home than there were pre-war, the figure having fallen from 4.69 persons per home in 1921 to 3.76 in 1954.
– They are the overall figures. It is evident that the general level of prosperity is finding expression in a demand for better standards of housing. It is a trend that the Government will encourage to the full. Even with these improved standards, the current annual need is estimated at approximately 57,000 dwellings. But against that figure it will be noted that in each of the past four years almost 80,000 dwellings have been completed. The unsatisfied demand is being overtaken by more than 20,000 dwellings per annum. It should also be noted that this remarkable progress has been due very largely to private, not government, house building - a fact which completely justifies the provision of Commonwealth aid for the expansion of private home building.
I turn now to the terms of the agreement which the bill authorizes the Government to complete. The agreement will be for five years from 1st July, 1956. The new agreement does not specify the amount of money to be provided for housing. That is a matter of agreement from year to year between the Commonwealth and each State. Failing such agreement, the Commonwealth will make an allocation from the loan funds available to it through the Australian Loan Council’s approved borrowing programme. Housing funds available to the States in each year will be provided henceforth in two categories. The major proportion of moneys will be made available in a way which, with a few minor reservations, will enable the States to implement the kind of housing policy they prefer. The remainder of the funds are to be paid to the credit of a home builders’ account in each State and used for the purpose of encouraging home ownership. During the first two years, 20 per cent, of the moneys received by each State is to be deposited in the home builders’ account whilst in the remaining three years the percentage will rise to 30.
Under the new agreement the money made available by the Commonwealth will be repayable by the States in annual instalments over a period of 53 years at an interest rate which will be 1 per cent, below the long-term bond rate when that rate exceeds 4£ per cent, and f per cent, below the long-term bond rate when that rate is 4£ per cent, or less. The Commonwealth may review interest rates two years hence, but in doing so it may nol reduce the interest concession below J per cent. As from the 1st July, 1956. under the new agreement, the effective rate of interest will be 4 per cent., representing a concession of 1 per cent, on the long-term bond rate. When the level of interest has risen for all activities since the war it would be completely unrealistic to do other than relate to the long-term bond rate the C03t of providing services to the community, including housing.
The concession given, however, will unable the States to limit the increase in rents. And there are vital considerations which answer adequately any criticism of increased rental. For instance, it should be pointed out that during the last five years houses built by governments under the housing agreement have represented only 14.3 per cent. of the total houses built in Australia. The result is that most of our people who are called upon to finance their own housing arrangements without benefit of government assistance, are at the same time providing through taxation the finance for home building at subsidized interest rates for the benefit of those in equal or in some cases better financial positions. This Government believes in encouraging home ownership and thinks it highly undesirable that the rate of interest charged for rental housing should be kept too much below the rate of interest charged to home builders. It relies on the ‘interest concession to avoid too steep an increase in rents.
Under the new agreement, the States will have considerable freedom in determining their housing policies. The Commonwealth will provide funds at a favorable interest rate. The States will be able to use the funds made available for their section of the housing programme largely as they desire. They may build houses to rent or houses to sell. They may fix rentals in accordance with their own policies. If they build to let, the States alone will determine the rents to be charged and if they desire to sell houses nn terms they may fix the purchase price, the amount of deposit, the interest rate and the terms of repayment.
The Commonwealth, however, will make the following stipulations concern- ing houses to be erected by the State governments -
The arrangement under the 1945 agreement giving preferential allocation to ex-servicemen and their dependants of up to 50 per cent. of the dwellings constructed is carried forward into the provisions of the new agreement. Serving members of the forces arenow to be included in this group. In addition, provision is made for the Commonwealth to require a State to set aside, for the erection of dwellings for serving members of the Defence Forces, not more than 5 per cent. of the advance which it receives for its housing programme. The Commonwealth will provide a supplementary advance equal to the amount which each State is thus required to reserve for this purpose. The houses built under these arrangements will be owned and maintained by the State, and the State will not be required to build them in other than “ a usual residential locality “.
I turn now to that important section of the agreement which deals withthe Commonwealth policy of encouraging home ownership. As I have already said, the agreement provides that 20 per cent. of the total housing moneys in the first two years and 30 per cent. in the remaining three years shall be deposited by each State in a home builders’ account. The home builders’ account is to operate as a revolving fund from which advances will be made to building societies and other approved institutions. Advances made by the Commonwealth, plus the instalment repayments, will be credited to the fund. The advances made to building societies and other approved institutions, plus reasonable expenses and the instalments necessary to repay the Commonwealth it3 advances over the 53-year period, will be debited to the fund.
It should be noted that, on actuarial computation, and assuming repayment of advances by building societies to the State in 31 years, this revolving fund procedure will finance approximately twice as many homes over the 53-year period of the Commonwealth-State loan than if the money were used to build houses for rent. Thus, not only is Liberal policy being put into effect, but it results in a greater output of houses for the same amount of money available by loan. In addition, the larger deposits commonly paid by building society members mean that more houses will be financed with a given sum than if that sum were made available through State housing authorities. The building society movement in Australia has made a noteworthy contribution to providing the people of Australia with homes of their own choice, erected in localities of their own choosing. The Commonwealth hopes that the provision of funds in this way will stimulate the development of building societies in Australia.
The Housing Agreement states that the required proportion of the funds is to be deposited to the home builders’ fund, and, from that source, is to be advanced to building societies and other institutions approved by the Commonwealth, upon terms agreed between the Commonwealth and the State government concerned. It has been the objective to permit flexibility in the arrangements, so that the scheme can fit in with the pattern of home finance that pertains in each State. This is due to the fact that the building societies differ in their constitutions and methods of operation in the various States. Also, they are more strongly established in some States than in others.
The Minister for National Development is negotiating with State Ministers concerning the details for each State on the following basis: -
It is contemplated that the arrangements will be reviewed from year to year so that they can be kept sufficiently flexible to encourage the growth of the building society movement.
In this bill I believe the Government has made a reasonable approach to an important but difficult problem. For that reason, and because I believe the Opposition will concede to the Government the right to have its policy implemented as to the stated percentages of the loan funds available in a way which will produce more houses, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr. Ward) adjourned.
page 3300
Debate resumed from the 14th June (vide page 3294), on motion by Mr. Townley -
That thu bill be now read a second time.
.- The speeches of members of the Opposition have indicated the grave concern that they feel at the attempt of the Governmen to obtain parliamentary authority to make an agreement for a period of twenty years with the major shipping interests. They are convinced that such an arrangement will ultimately sound the death-knell of the government-owned shipping lino. Honorable members should keep very well in mind the fact that the Government tried to sell these ships. The Government desired to rid private interests of the active competition of this publicly owned steamship line, which has checked the rapacious demands of the shipping companies, particularly upon primary producers, in freights and fares. One can understand that this Government., with it3 political affiliations, would seek in some way to destroy the effectiveness of a public utility such as the Commonwealth shipping line. The Minister has clearly indicated that the Government’s determination is to avoid an expansion of this line, but he tried to lull the fears of the community as to the real purpose of this measure by saying that the agreement would not necessarily interfere with the efficiency of the service rendered by private shipping companies. The Minister attempted to show that the Government’s purpose is not to do anything detrimental to the government-owned line, but at the same time it would give private shipping interests that consideration to which it thinks they are entitled.
No agreement for a period of twenty years, or for any other such period, can have any validity. Certainly, it has no ethical basis if it would prevent succeeding parliaments from revising or amending it. No agreement should extend for more than six or twelve months beyond the life of the parliament that approved it. A succeeding parliament should be able to review or terminate it.
The proposals of the Government are more far-reaching than has been indicated by the Minister. At the end of twenty years the ships will have become obsolete. The commission will not have had the opportunity to accumulate reserves for the purpose of obtaining new ships to supplement or replace those which have become obsolete. Therefore, the line will automatically disappear.
– It will fade out.
– It will fade out. As the Government could not dispose of those ships by sale in the ordinary way, it has devised a scheme whereby ultimately the line will cease to be a formidable rival of the shipping companies and a check on the fares and freight rates charged by them. That brings me to the point that Government supporters claim to believe in the principle of free enterprise and active competition, yet by means of the measures we are to-day considering the Government proposes to do everything possible to destroy the effectiveness of the Commonwealth shipping line as an active competitor of private shipping interests. I cannot understand how members of the Australian Country party, particularly, can give their sanction to a proposal of this description, which is designed to remove from the field of active competition the one and only authority that is capable of meeting the present need to restrain private shipping companies from making excessive demands upon primary producers and the people generally. It will be interesting to see how members of the Australian Country party respond to the absolute claim upon their loyalty to the great primary producing industries and communities, and their duty to give them protection against the demands of the private shipping companies. Australia should acknowledge its reliance on transport facilities to maintain its life lines and assist in the actual development of the country, to meet the needs of an over-increasing population and to contribute to our security. Furthermore, the rights of our Territories must be considered in a situation of this kind. Surely nothing is more important to the future of this country than communication and transport facilities.
The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) led the debate for the Opposition with admirable skill and ability and presented a case which is worthy of careful study. I believe that one of the remarks made by the honorable member is worthy of being underlined and emphasized to the House. That is, that Australia is probably the only country that plays a leading part in world affairs, but which has not its own overseas shipping line.
This is a primary producing country and must, of necessity, send its products to all parts of the world. Yet, we have no ships on our own register owned by Australians, capable of performing this service. I suggest that that is a very serious state of affairs, and is a great disadvantage to this country because it means that we have to rely on shipping concerns that are controlled from abroad. Therefore, before we can sell our products abroad expeditiously, overseas shipping interests must be sufficiently well disposed to Australia to allocate ships to us for our overseas trade.
Furthermore, Australia is an island continent with a coastline of 12,210 miles, and, that being so, we should all realize that one of our chief forms of transport is shipping. I suggest that sea and air transport are the main forms of transport in a country such as ours, although, of course, the railway services have very important functions to perform. Nevertheless, shipping is indispensable to this country, and to our adjacent Territories, with the welfare of which we are greatly concerned.
Now, we should consider not only transport operations in time of peace, but also how they will assist to preserve the safety of this country in time of war. During World War II. I had the responsibility of being a member of the War Cabinet, and was actively associated with ship construction and repair. Therefore, honorable members will realize that I know something of the extremely serious position in which we then found ourselves because of lack of shipping facilities, due to the fact that matters such as that which is now before us were not considered in a proper and effective fashion before the war. We had built no reserves of essential ships, and consequently sufficient shipping was not available for us during the war.
It is hardly necessary for me to say that in those circumstances we were very seriously inconvenienced, and that our efforts to provide adequate ships under the stress of war were made much more difficult. I believe that we should now be actively engaged in modernizing the whole of our mercantile marine. In wartime all our shipyards and repair facilities have to be diverted to naval purposes, so that naval ships can be built and repaired as quickly as possible. That prevents us from concentrating on merchant ships in time of war, so the time to build up our mercantile fleet is now. It is essentia] that we should have in peace-time a fleet of the most modern ships, which will be ancillary to our ordinary defence measures. This, alone, would justify ‘bringing our merchant service up to date. During the last war we were gravely concerned about the inadequate number of skilled shipbuilding artisans. This scarcity greatly limited our ability to meet the urgent demands made upon Australia as a base from which operations could be undertaken. Shipbuilding installations should be modernized, and the latest machines capable of undertaking major work should be installed in our shipbuilding yards. Moreover, Australia should train artisans capable of undertaking urgent and essential shipbuilding repairs both in peace-time and in time of war. This can be achieved only by having a wellbalanced shipbuilding programme during peace-time. I wish to bring to the notice of the Parliament the importance of legislation such as this to the future of a country. To destroy our governmentowned line - for that is the principal purpose behind this legislation - will greatly add to the difficulties of this country if ever it is again called upon to face a condition of emergency.
During the last war when I went to Tasmania to attend to urgent and important public business I found that there was not sufficient shipping to transport the produce of that island State across to the mainland. The fruit crops of Tasmania had to be turned into the ground, and the Commonwealth had to subsidize the orchardists so that they would not have to walk off their blocks. Thus, the people of the mainland not only were denied the advantage of these essential foodstuffs, but also had to meet the loss that had been sustained by the Tasmanian producers. That should illustrate to honorable members what can happen if Australia has not the facilities necessary to enable the daily life of this country to be carried on in time of emergency. For those reasons I impress upon the chamber how essential it is that we take care not to introduce any proposal that would be likely to create difficulty or hamper in any way the progress and development of an efficient shipping line.
We must have efficient shipping in the interests of this great country’s development. The necessity for this was brought home to us during the war when, because of lack of shipping facilities, we were unable to evacuate from New Guinea, New Britain and New Ireland, in particular, many people who were subsequently captured by the Japanese and who. while being transported to some other place after capture, were drowned. A relative of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) was one of the unfortunate victims in those circumstances. Such tragedies are all too soon forgotten by some honorable members, and I recall them now in order to impress upon the Parliament the urgent, need for taking action to ensure that we shall not have a recurrence of such tragic events. We can guard against them only by establishing such facilities as will give security to the people of not only the mainland but also of those territories which are situated upon our frontiers, as it were. We must be able to give those people immediate assistance in times of emergency. If we are not prepared to do that, we should not accept responsibility for their safety. The people of those distant parts should also be given adequate protection during peace-time against extortionate freights and fares. When I visited those areas the general complaint was that Burns Philp and Company Limited, W. B. Carpenter and Company Limited and other shipping interests were charging excessive freights and fares but, at the same time, were neglecting to provide adequate snipping facilities for the transport of goods.
The Government now proposes to require the Commonwealth ships to undertake developmental work. No doubt that will be the chief activity of the Government’s shipping line. If that is to be so, then it is obvious that the authority administering the line will not be in a position to build up sufficient reserves to enable it either to replace or buy vessels. That being so, the Commonwealth shipping line will be at a further disadvantage in competing with other interests. Eventually, the fact that it is unable to build up reserves and, therefore, unable to maintain or extend its fleet, will be used against it as a reason for its discontinuance and ultimate sale.
I was interested to learn, from some of the statements that were made by honorable members opposite, that they feel that the subject of freights and fares is quite well looked after by the private shipping concerns. Of course it is ! I have no doubt that the Australian community will learn all too painfully the kind of consideration that those interests are likely to give. I know of no more rapacious people in the whole of commercial or trading life than they. I know of no people who make heavier demands upon people than the shipping interests. I remember, of course, that their ancestors were well noted for piracy. I think that, in a’ modern sense, whilst it may be done in a well-carpeted room with heavy furnishings, some of these people still follow some element of that old tradition.
I now want to say a few words about the services that have been provided by the mercantile marine - and they were great during the period of the war, for no men were more brave than those who went to sea. It was not the shipowners who displayed courage and determination in getting the ships from one port to another. It was those men who are spoken of in a disparaging manner by members on the other side of the House, who are constantly traduced by them, and who are given no recognition for the service that they have rendered for the cause of civilization in assisting to defeat the enemy in a threatening situation. These are the men who encountered all of these risks and difficulties and who kept the lanes of the sea open to the free nations.
Therefore, at this moment, T feel that the Government has proposed something of a most reactionary character, something that will retard the interests of the people of Australia, something that certainly will destroy ultimately a very valuable public asset, and something that will add nothing to the solution of the problems that present themselves to us both in peace and in war. Our experience during the period of the last war should, in itself, bring to our minds the urgent necessity to increase our shipping and even provide reserve material with which we should be ready to meet the problems of the future. Therefore, I feel that the House would be very well advised to reject the proposals that have been made by the Government to the Parliament. We should seek to make the Commonwealth shipping line an active competitor of the private shipping interests, serving Australia as it could serve it, making it possible for the primary production of Australia to be marketed at a fair and reasonable rate, and providing better facilities and opportunities for primary producers to enjoy the very best returns for their labours. I feel that, in that way, the Parliament will best serve the interests of this country and will prepare for the needs of the future in the way that I have mentioned.
– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.
.- It is astonishing to find that members of the Australian Labour party are able to change their coats so easily. We sit in this place and we hear their pleas, one day, on behalf of the primary producers. The next day we hear the primary producer being condemned as a moneyed class, a wealthy wool class, blood-sucking graziers, and rapacious and greedy wheatgrowers. So Opposition members change their coats according to circumstances. Because of that, obviously, one can take very little notice of the times at which they plead, for party-political purposes, on behalf of the primary producer.
We have just been treated to a very excellent exhibition of a solo game of Aunt Sally. The honorable member for Bonython (Mr. Makin) set up imaginary ninepins and cast balls at them in order to knock them down.
– And missed them, too!
– Yes. Most of what he said was purely imaginary. For instance, he appealed to the Australian Country party to exercise its power in this Parliament to protect the interests of the primary producer. He went wide of the mark, because he completely overlooked the fact that in the bill before the House provision is made that the charges of the commission for the carriage of persons or goods or for other services shall be subject to the approval of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge). Therefore, the position is that the Minister, who is subject to this Parliament, is the one who is to see that a fair deal is given to the people who are to provide these services. The bill contains a further direction to the Minister and to the commission that the lowest possible rates are to be charged. Clause 18 and clause 19 refer to these matters. The bill contains a provision to protect the users of the shipping services.
At times, it becomes a bit sickening to hear honorable members of the Labour party constantly charging honorable members on this side of the House with traducing and condemning the working man, as they call him. Never, at any time, has any Government supporter been guilty of casting a stone at the working man. We never condemn him. although instances may arise when we become critical. For example, we might quite easily be critical of the seamen who, during the war-time when they were risking their lives at sea, demanded, because their leaders demanded, special war-risk pay, regardless of the fact that others of us were risking our lives ashore. Under those circumstances, we should be critical of the seaman. But we adopt a charitable attitude to them. We say that, unfortunately, because of the nature of their calling, because they are widely scattered, they have to rely on somebody, their so-called leader, to think for them and to battle for them. Unfortunately, those to whom they have entrusted their welfare and their destiny are people of the wrong type. They are the ones whom we condemn, not the men themselves who bear the burdens of the day. Those we condemn are the ones who bludgeon on them as their leaders.
– The honorable member has referred to clause 19. Will he also look at clause 18?
– I have had a look at it, and I am quite satisfied with it.
The honorable member for Bonython also referred to many instances of the inadequacy of our shipping services and of the difficulties in connexion with shipping which occurred during the war years. I could continue in that strain and recount the inadequacies of our coastal shipping services since the war years, even to the present day, but the purpose of this bill is to overcome those inadequacies. The honorable member for Bonython condemned restrictions and the absence of progress. I point out to him that this bill and the agreement associated with it are designed for the purpose of developing om- coastal shipping services. They aim to ensure that there shall be adequate services. In the agreement which is associated with the bill there is a provision that the shipping companies shall comply with the requirements of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, which is to be established under this bill, in the way of providing adequate shipping services for our coastal trade, and that in the event of the companies not providing a sufficient number of ships the commission itself will be charged with that task. This is the first time that the onus, the responsibility to provide an adequate shipping service has been placed on somebody’s shoulders and not left in the air, as it has been in the past, with nobody responsible for it. This Government is the first to take positive action to make sure that there shall be an adequate shipping service on the coast of Australia, and rightly so.
L am not a believer in governments entering into competitive fields with private enterprise. At the same time, I do not believe in monopolies. I have very few kind words to say for the shipping people, so long as they enter into a combine and do not give adequate service. It does not matter what kind of an enterprise it is, whether it be a public monopoly or a private monopoly, so long as it is of a monopolistic nature the public will never receive adequate service from it. But in this case we are establishing a competitive service. We are endeavouring to break down a monopoly. I should be one of the last to favour the Commonwealth going out of the shipping industry so long as there was an absence of genuine competition among the private shipping lines. In this instance, we are making sure that there will be a proper competitive spirit right through the piece. The commission is charged with great responsibilities, and its first responsibility will be to see that there is an adequate shipping service for Australian requirements. Its second responsibility will be to see that that service is conducted at the lowest possible cost.
Another matter that is provided in the bill before the House is that the shipbuilding industry shall be maintained. That is a matter of vast importance. Australia should be a powerful maritime country. When I say that, I am not speaking in terms of big navies ; I mean that Australia must develop its sea trade to the fullest possible extent. This continent is in a similar position to that of Great Britain in the early days of its history, when the rulers of that island kingdom had the wisdom, even before the days of democratic parliaments, to devote their energies to the encouragement of an adequate sea trade and secure shipping lanes. Great Britain became the maritime nation that it is to-day because its people were obliged to make it so. I believe that a similar responsibility rest3 on the governments of this country. They must encourage, in every possible way, the development of Australia as a maritime nation. We must establish a shipping service which is adequate not only for our coastal needs but also to meet our overseas shipping requirements.
This bill will enable the commission to turn its attention to Australia’s overseas shipping needs. I am aware that, because of the conditions which apply to Australian steamship operations, it would not be possible for Australian ships to compete with overseas ships so far as freight charges were concerned. If we care to examine the methods by which these overseas shipping lines operate, we shall find that all too often disabilities, difficulties and additional charges are placed in the way of Australian exporters in order to avoid the possibility of Australian products competing on markets which are at present the property, one might almost say, of the United Kingdom or continental countries. Overseas shipping services are being used as another method to protect overseas interests against the possibility of competition from Australian trade. Thus, quite a lot of the so-called trade concessions and trade preferences are being defeated by an indirect method.
The only way in which we can overcome that difficulty is to introduce our own carrying lines. Although it may not be possible, because of the much less costly working conditions on overseas ships, to compete on a straightout competitive basis, it might well be that we could compete with them so far as charges are concerned, and it might be well worth our while to do so.
– Particularly in respect of bulk cargoes.
– As the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Ian Allan) says, that may be particularly so in the case of bulk cargoes. In the national interest, it may be worth our while to enter into competition with overseas shipping lines. This commission, I suggest, should be charged early in its history with responsibility to investigate, not only the adequacy of our coastal shipping services, but also the possibility of engaging in competition with overseas shipping lines, in the national interest, apart altogether from any question of economy.
One of the difficulties from which we have suffered has been a considerable degree of irrationality in connexion with shipping services on the Australian coast, lt is true that all of the shipping companies are losing cargoes and passengers to organizations which conduct other methods of transport. I believe that that is due only to the fact that there is so much uncertainty about shipping. We in the more distant States, such as Western Australia, my own State, never know when goods ordered from the eastern States are likely to arrive. Weeks, months, of delay occur. Is it not obvious that the people of Western Australia are not going to rely on the use of a. service which is so unreliable in comparison with other means of freight transport? It is not possible to conduct a business properly without being able to rely on receiving, at the correct time, supplies that have been ordered. The result has been that businesses in Western Australia have turned to the use of a form of goods transport that is moTe costly than sea transport. I refer to transport by air. The volume of air freight between the eastern States and Western Australia is astonishing in the light of the very high freight charges for air transport of goods compared with the charges for goods transported by rail or sea - and particularly in comparison with the low cost of transport of goods by sea.
I wish to direct attention to the fact that the necessity for businesses in Western Australia to use air freight in order to have a reliable supply of goods inflicts an additional burden on the people of Western Australia - not only on the consumers, but also on the producers and the middlemen. Industry in Western Australia generally is burdened in this way because the national protectionist policy of this nation compels Western Australia to trade with the eastern States whether we like it or not, and we are therefore compelled to pay the ruling transport charges from the eastern States, whatever they may be. There is thus a tremendous disparity between the benefit.? enjoyed by the people in the eastern States and the disabilities under which the Western Australian people suffer. As a result of this disparity the possibility of fair competition between an industry in Western Australia and a similar industry in the eastern States is ruled out.
If for no other reason than that it will reduce the burden that they carry in respect of the cost of consumer goods, the people of Western Australia will welcome a rationalization of our shipping services that will place us in a position nearer to that enjoyed by the consumers on the eastern seaboard. Let the honorable member for Bonython and his friends of the Labour party consider the disabilities suffered by Western Australians in relation to transport, when they complain about charges and freights paid by people on the eastern seaboard.
Unfortunately, stevedoring and wharf age charges are the greatest factor in freight rates. The shipping companies are compelled to pay exorbitant charges for wharfage and cargo handling, and the final cost to the consumer is loaded with those charges. When we complain about high freight charges for shipping we often lose sight of the fact that handling of cargoes on the wharfs accounts for a bigger proportion of the final charge than does the actual transport cost of goods, even over a distance of, say, 12,000 miles either to or from “Western Australia. T know that it costs about £6 for a carcass of beef to be loaded at Fremantle - an altogether disproportionate charge. The actual cost of carrying the beef overseas is comparatively very small.
Another point of attack on the bill by Labour speakers, which I am sure we shall hear raised again at the committee stage, is their dissatisfaction with clause after clause. But examination shows that most of the clauses, if not all, which are under criticism by the Labour party are already in the Labour government measure which this bill is to replace.
– Not all of them.
– I concede that there may be an odd one or two provisions in the Labour legislation which have not been included in this bill, but most of the Labour provisions are in it. Most of the clauses in the bill are mere copies of previous provisions. My criticism in that connexion is that the Government has too slavishly followed the Labour provisions. I believe that many of those provisions should have been altered.
– You want more.
– Yes, I do. As I said yesterday, I represent Moore and I want more. I very much regret that the Government has included in this measure clauses which have been merely lifted from previous measures, and I criticize it for doing so. These provisions appear in this bill very largely word for word as they appear in the previous legislation passed by the Labour government. So if honorable members opposite want to be critical of the measure I suggest that they join with me in criticizing the Government for having too slavishly followed the provisions of past measures and for thereby having included unsatisfactory features in this bill.
One unsatisfactory provision in the measure is that which exempts the commission from the payment of local government rates and State taxes. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. McLeay), who is such a champion in this House of the rights of local government, may interest himself in this aspect of the bill. This commission is to be a trading com mission, which will have to rely on its charges to return it a profit, just as local government bodies have to rely on rates for their revenue. The commission, is to compete with private interests. Yet it is to enjoy the concession of exemption from State taxes and local government rates.
– It will have to pay wharfage dues.
– Yes, it will have to pay those, and normal shipping charges, too, but there are any number of other charges which private individuals and concerns are called on to pay which this commission will not have to pay. It will have to pay Commonwealth income tax, but will be exempt from State and local government charges. I have no objection to a public utility’s enjoying freedom from such taxes, because it is established to provide service to the community and not merely to make a profit. But I do object to a trading concern, particularly one that is to be in competition with other trading concerns, and which should have to compete with private enterprise on its own merits, enjoying the benefit of such concessions as freedom from charges that its competitors have to bear. If this enterprise is to be properly competitive it must bear charges similar to those borne by private concerns in the same line of business. That provision for exemption from charges is another provision that has simply been lifted from the Labour government’s legislation, but I do not hear honorable members opposite commending the Government for including the provision in the measure.
– That will be the day!
– Yes, I am afraid that will be the day. I notice, also, that under clause 29 the commission is not to be called upon to pay interest on the capital employed in its business, but will be required to hand over such profits, or such proportion of its profits as the Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasurer, may determine. All, or most, of the money employed by the commission in conducting its business will be borrowed money, and I believe there should be an interest charge on it. If the commission feels itself obliged to provide itself with additional ships, as it (undoubtedly will do in time, it will be Able to do so only by the use of funds made available to it by the Government - that is, by the taxpayers - funds which should come out of loan funds and on which interest should be payable. The commission should have to pay interest, just as an ordinary concern borrowing money has to pay interest.
There again the Government is following too slavishly the ideas of our socialistic predecessors. I believe that is wrong. It is pleasing to find that the Government has adopted, in relation to the proposed Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, which is to be a corporate body, some of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and that an attempt has been made to define the responsibility of the Minister in relation to the corporation. He is’ to receive reports regularly and he may require the commission to supply information. The commission will have the responsibility of keeping him informed, and, as a result, the Parliament will be kept informed of the activities of the proposed commission. That is correct and proper, because the Parliament must be aware of what happens from time to time in relation to a public organization which may have to be provided with public funds. The Parliament must accept responsibility for the activities of public bodies established by legislation.
Clause 37 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Bill 1956 requires the proposed commission from time to time to inform the Minister concerning the general conduct of its business. I should prefer something more specific in the stipulation of the frequency with which the Minister shall be informed than the words “from time to time “, which could mean every week, every year, or even at longer intervals. The matter should not be left so indefinite. Clause 39 provides that the proposed commission shall, as soon as practicable after the 30th June in each year, prepare and present to the Minister a report of its operations for the financial year. Unfortunately, it has become the practice for most of the public bodies established under legislation enacted by this Parliament to interpret the words “ as soon as practicable “ loosely, so that the Minister concerned, and, subsequently, the Parliament, is presented with a report that is frequently months, and sometimes years, out of date.
– That has always been so.
– I know, but I am surprised that the honorable member, whom I have always regarded as having a proper sense of his responsibilities as a member of this House, should be prepared to allow it to continue. He was a Minister in the Labour government, and he had the power and the opportunity to do something about it. But he did nothing and he stands condemned for his inaction. It is time we made sure that annual report.are presented more promptly and I look forward to appropriate action by this Government, which, unlike the Labour government in which the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) served, is seised of a sense of its responsibilities as a government, is mindful of the welfare of the taxpayers and the interests of the Australian community generally, and is anxious to do the right thing. I look to it to put into practice quickly something which I know it hopes to achieve ultimately. I hope the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) will set an example to the honorable member for Melbourne by substituting for the words “ as soon as practicable “ provision for a specific period. Corporations of this type are under constant supervision by the Audit Office and the Treasury, and I do not see why any one of them cannot adopt normal business practices and see that their annual reports are in the hands of the Minister concerned no later than, say, three months after the end of the financial year.
I support the bill, and I commend the Government on its attempt to rationalize our coastal shipping services by establishing the proposed Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. I commend it also on its decision to allow the proposed commission to enter into overseas services in certain circumstances, and on its determination to ensure that somebody shall be charged with the responsibility of providing adequate shipping service:-.
Air. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Lawrence). - Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.
.- The honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie) disappointed me. I hoped that Ite would make a contribution to the debates in this House without mentioning the words “ socialist “ and “ socialism but in the last five minutes of his time lie introduced them as usual, and followed the pattern usually followed by most Government supporters. Opposition members make no apology for their views, nor do they try to camouflage their position. Every member of the Australian Labour party signs a pledge which commits him to the socialization nf the means of production, distribution and exchange. In making that statement, I arn revealing nothing new. The fact of the matter is that at every election during the last 25 years, to my knowledge, the parties to which Government supporters belong have spent large -“ins of money publicizing that pledge in i he newspapers.
I think the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) very aptly summarized the Government’s views when he said that it believes in the socialization of the losses of private enterprise. Here again, we have the Government rushing to the defence of private enterprise and attempting to give it most favorable terms in competition with government, undertakings. The Government’s attitude to the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill 1956 recalls to my mind the favoured treatment it gave to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, which, incidentally, V-as very large shipping in terete, in an earlier measure, which permitted Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to compete on the most favorable terms with Trans-Australia Airlines. The Government went to the length of making available to the company £3,000,000 of the taxpayer’s money at low interest rates.
– That is not right.
– The Government is again adopting the principle of favouring private enterprise by attempting to put the undertaking of the Australian Ship ping Board in a strait- jacket and to give the private shipping interests an advantage over the Commonwealth shipping line. The contrast between the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill 1956 and the Shipping Act 1949 is basically confined to the omission from the present legislation of two provisions. Whereas the 1949 act left to the Australian Shipping Board the right to fix freight charges and fares, that right, is not given to the proposed Australian Coastal Shipping Commission by this bill. Section 25 of the 1949 act reads -
The Board may, with the approval of the Treasurer, set aside, out of its revenue, such sums as it thinks proper for reserves for depreciation of assets, insurance or other purposes.
There is no such provision in the bill now before the House, and, as a consequence, it is obvious that it is intended to keep the operations of the proposed commission to a minimum.
I propose to devote my remarks, in the main, to the importance of shipbuilding for defence. I cannot see what impetus the proposed commission will give to shipbuilding, and it will certainly make no contribution to our defence. I do not propose to traverse the ground that ha3 already been adequately covered by Opposition members who recounted to the-
HouFe the history of the disposal of tha first Commonwealth shipping fleet of 4T vessels. But I shall tell the House something of the history of the same period! in relation to shipbuilding. The BrucePage Government at that time, instead, of placing orders for the construction of ships here in Australia, placed them overseas. In fact, the fall of that government was hastened by the fact that it placed overseas an order for the construction of a cruiser, when Australian yards were crying out for work. The Tariff Board, which recently inquired into the shipbuilding industry in Aus.tralia reported that shipbuilding practically came to an end in this country in 1929. Because of the policy of “the Bruce-Page Government, our effort at the outbreak of war was considerably hindered, and we were embarrassed.
It is indeed remarkable that, in a country like Australia which, due to its geographical situation, is a mercantile nation, very little has been done to develop the shipbuilding industry. History shows that nations much smaller than Australia, and lacking the potentialities of this country, have made considerable contributions in the field of mercantile marine and trade, but for certain reasons that we have not yet been able to fathom, Australia has been left at the mercy of outside interests in this respect. As a result of the impetus provided by the war, the Australian shipbuilding industry is now making a contribution - be it only a small one - towards providing Australia with a mercantile fleet, but it is still not working to full capacity. Evidence that was placed before the Tariff Board showed that, if the Australian shipbuilding yards received all of the orders that they are capable of filling, the number of persons employed in the industry would be doubled.
It is only because of the activities of the Australian Shipping Board that shipbuilding has been maintained in Australia. If it had been left to the private shipping interests, I believe that the events of 1929 would have been repeated ; the shipbuilding yards would have closed down. “We have only to reflect on the attitude of the private shipping interests towards shipbuilding. They place orders for the construction of ships, not in this country, but with overseas shipbuilding yards. They have done nothing to encourage the Australian shipbuilding industry. Confirmation of my opinion in this regard is contained in evidence that was placed before the Tariff Board. The private shipping interests have the same attitude in relation to the repairs.
Quite a number of the shipping companies that are engaged in the Australian coastal trade prefer to have their vessels repaired overseas by cheaper labour at places such as Singapore, to the detriment of the Australian industry. Their attitude over the years has proved conclusively that they are not very much concerned with what happens to the Australian industry. Their principal concern is to make profits. Of course, nobody objects to their making a reasonable profit but. when one studies this bill, it is quite obvious that the shipping companies are not prepared to surrender any of their rights.
During the last week or two, quite a lot has been said during the debates in this House about the stevedoring industry. From the arguments that have been presented, one might have imagined that, given an opportunity, the shipping companies would have gladly vacated the field of stevedoring. But this bill makes provision for them to retain their stevedoring interests. Indeed, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission will be prevented from having anything to do with stevedoring. If that industry is as unprofitable as some honorable members opposite have tried to make out why, at this juncture, are the shipowners determined that a rival shall not be permitted to enter the field?
The bill limits the tonnage of the Commonwealth shipping line for the next twenty years. At present, the aggregate gross tonnage of Commonwealth ships engaged in the coastal trade is 247,000, and over the next twenty years it will be permissible for the total gross tonnage to be increased to only 325,000. That means that, during the next twenty years, we will be limited to the provision each year of one more ship of 4,000 tons.
– Oh, no !
– The honorable member’s figures arc wrong. The present tonnage is 155,000.
– That is not so. The present gross tonnage is 247,000, and the permissible tonnage will be 325,000.
– Plus as much more as you like-
-Even if I were to concede that point to the Minister for Air (Mr. Townley), which I do not do, on his own admission all that the line could build in Australia each year during the next twenty years would be two ships of 4,000 tons each.
Several weeks ago, the Government introduced the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill. At the time, supporters of the Government, stressed the necessity for Australia to capture overseas markets, and to increase its export trade. But how will Australia be able to capture overseas markets? Under the bill now before us, the commission is prevented from engaging in overseas trading activities, which will be left exclusively to private interests. At present, I believe there are registered in this country only nine ships of varying tonnage which are engaged in the Australian export trade. Apart from those ships, Australia is completely at the mercy of overseas interests. If the Government does not assist the primary producers and the manufacturing interests to compete on world markets, it will only have itself to blame when Australian products are outpriced on those markets.
A few months ago, the overseas shipping combine stated, in terms that could not be misunderstood, that it was not prepared to listen to any reasons why it should not increase freight rates. Therefore, it is apparent that this Government has absolutely no say with the combine in relation to freight charges. The bill now before us does not change the position. In our attempt to capture, or recapture, overseas markets, we shall be at the mercy of the combines. I do not know of any other country with potentialities similar to those of Australia which has left itself so much at r.he mercy of overseas interests.
In a few months’ time, the shipping service between Australia and the United States of America will be recommenced; the Matson line is coming back into this field. I have no objection to the company again engaging in that trade, but I point out that if the Government had displayed vision, it might have done something in this direction. Apparently, this is a lucrative trade, despite the fact that the Matson line has stated that it incurred losses on it previously. During the period that that company has not provided a Pacific service, both the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company Limited and the Orient Steam Navigation Company Limited moved into the vacuum. They are now operating services - admittedly at irregular intervals - between Australia and San Francisco. Oddly enough, these shipping companies that are always talking about their losses, and which are not willing to countenance competition, are always prepared to move into the field when possible. I say quite definitely that, if we are to measure up to our responsibilities and at last are to be independent of outside interests for our survival, it is most important that we take steps immediately to correct the present position and cease to be completely at the dictates of people outside Australia.
Road and air transport developments have had some effect on Australian coastal shipping, and to a lesser degree on overseas’ shipping. This Government is always proclaiming how necessary it is for Australia to find overseas markets for its products and to have a real defence programme, but now it introduces a bill which does nothing to correct the position overseas and which tightens the situation internally in the interests of the private shipping companies. Australian private shipping interests are being given most favoured treatment. The Government seeks to tie down the proposed commission at every point; indeed, some of the restrictions that are to be placed upon that instrumentality are somewhat ridiculous. The borrowings of the commission at any particular time are not to exceed £1,000,000. With the commission restricted to such a small amount of money and - if we accept the Minister’s statement - permitted to build only 8,000 gross tons of shipping a year, what kind of shipbuilding programme can be laid down with building costs as they are? If that is to be the programme for the next twenty years, the position will be impossible. Over the last ten or twelve years, the population of Australia has increased by 2,000,000 persons. That being so, what will be the increase of industrial activity, population, and the like over the next twenty years? Why is the commission to be restricted to such a low building tonnage?
Why are not some demands being made upon some private interests to play their part in the shipbuliding programme? As I have pointed out, they have made no contribution at all. Any orders they have placed have been placed overseas. When their application was being considered by the Tariff Board, it was discovered that one of factors that contributed to their high running costs was the. age of their vessels, many of which are outmoded. The only ships of any note that have been added to Australia’s coastal fleet have been added as « result of the policy adopted by the Australian Shipping Board. Private enterprise cannot point to any achievement in that regard. All that the private shipping companies of Australia are concerned about is their right to make a profit. Care has been taken to ensure that the proposed commission shall in no way compete with private shipping interests. Government supporters speak about rivalry or competition in this field, but clauses 38 and 19 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill tie down the Minister very effectively, with the result that the private shipping interests will not be faced with competition. They will dictate and call the tune, as they have done over the last 30 or 40 years.
This bill is very disappointing, because it does nothing to promote or to safeguard the Australian shipbuilding industry. The programme envisaged in it is so ridiculous that it does not warrant further consideration. If we look to the private shipping interests to contribute towards the maintenance and development of the shipbuilding industry, we look in vain. There are yards in the port of Sydney that have not received an order from the Australian Shipping Board for two years. The only organization other than the Government that has placed orders with local yards is the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which is having ships built at “Whyalla. “With the exception of that company, I repeat that private enterprise has done nothing to maintain, safeguard, or develop this very vital industry.
If vision and courage were brought to bear on this problem, we would be not only protecting ourselves from a defence point of view, but also enabling ourselves to engage in overseas competition and to make some contribution towards building up our own industries. We would not be at the mercy of overseas interests as we are at the present time. Defence is vital. I feel that the point that was made yesterday by the honorable member for Fremantle was very important, because whether the money that is being spent on defence will be of any benefit in four or five years’ time is problematical. Australia’s capacity to build ships is one of the most important aspects of its defence programme. When we have a shipbuilding programme with which the Government says it is quite satisfied, but which means that the industry will almost close down within the next twenty years - an industry which, according to the submissions made to the Tariff Board, is working at only half of its capacity-
– One-third.
– I am corrected ; it is working at one-third of its capacity. When one takes those matters into consideration, one cannot be very much impressed by the arguments that are advanced by Government supporters in relation to defence. The Government proposes, and the bill provides, that the commission shall pay reasonable dividends. Who is to define what shall be reasonable dividends? On the one hand, the Government lays it down that the commission shall not borrow more than £1,000,000, but on the other hand it provides that the commission shall pay reasonable dividends. I should like to know whether those reasonable dividends will include interest on the money that the Treasury will advance to the commission. Every client department that receives money from the Treasury for its undertakings must pay an interest rate, I believe, of between 5 per cent, and 6 per cent. Will that 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, which the commission will have to pay be included in the reasonable dividend which the Government or the Treasurer will expect the commission to return ?
It is interesting also that the responsibility for the development of ports is to be thrust upon the commission. The Australian Shipping Board has willingly undertaken that task in the past which is absolutely necessary and which private enterprise’ has refused to undertake. Many non-profitable ports exist on the coast of Australia and if, in the past, they had been left to the mercy of private shipping interests, the people who were carrying out a pioneering job in those areas would have been compelled ro cease their operations. The responsibility for this developmental work is to ite placed upon the commission, but no responsibility at all is to be placed on private shipping interests. Why should private shipping interests be immune m this matter? Honorable members opposite are always talking about the services which private enterprise provides, but it is a remarkable fact that all those services are made available at a profit to the companies. When it comes to doing something for the common good and assisting in the development of these outposts, private shipping interests cannot find the ships to do the job. Their excuse is that the cost is too high, the project is non-commercial, and that, being hardheaded businessmen, they can hardly be expected to throw away their money. That has been their attitude throughout die years. If private shipping interests are prepared to take profits out of the Australian coastal shipping trade and from the Australian community, they mould also play some part in the development of this country. That responsibility should not be left entirely to the Government.
I am extremely disappointed that this measure deletes some of the vital provisions of the legislation of the Labour government, and alters that legislation entirely. This bill neglects the important aspect of safeguarding the shipbuilding industry of Australia and thus loses a magnificent opportunity to make a contribution to the defence of this country. Secondly, it prohibits the commission from, entering into overseas trade. As a. consequence, we shall be completed nt the mercy of overseas combines and our coastal trade will be completely at the mercy of the interstate and intrastate shipping companies. As has been the policy of this Government in the past, this bill gives most favoured treatment to private shipping interests and, as in the past, this Government is again showing its willingness to give private enterprise favoured treatment at the expense of the taxpayers of Australia.
– I intervene in this debate because for some years I had some ministerial responsibility for shipping matters, especially in connexion with shipbuilding. I should have liked to have spent all my time dealing in detail with the great many allegations that have been made by the honorable members opposite. I shall answer some of them, but to the extent to which I do not answer them I am sure they will be answered by other speakers. The thing that has struck me about this debate is that Opposition speakers have failed to a very large extent to recognize and acknowledge that Australia is faced with a problem in connexion with the shipping industry. In some instances there is an understanding of the problem but, instead of facing up to it in a pragmatic and realistic way, there seemed to be in the minds of all Opposition speakers only one solution to the problem, and that was more socialism.
– That is correct.
– I am answered, ex cathedra or, out of the horse’s mouth, as it were, that what is needed is more socialism.
– Private enterprise is phony.
– We are told that private enterprise is phony and that we need more socialism, not only in the shipping industry, but also in every other industry. That crystallizes the Opposition’s attitude.
There is a grave problem of shipping in Australia. We have one of the longest coastlines of any country in the world, and our capital cities and trading ports are separated by long distances. We also have a bad land transport system; everybody acknowledges that. We are essentially a trading nation and our very existence depends upon a vigorous external and interstate trade, especially in primary products. We have a depleted fleet and people who should normally be supplying our maritime transport have shown a disinclination to spend money because of a fear of the future, very largely engendered by the action of the previous government under its celebrated 1949 legislation.
The problem of shipping in Australia is a very old and recurring story. It goes back to the days of World War I., when Mr. Hughes, who was then Prime
Minister, bought ships and established a Commonwealth shipping line. He bought ships for the same reason that ships were acquired a generation later; it was essential at the time to have more maritime transport. During the latter years of the war and the years immediately following it that line began to incur - perhaps it never did anything else - very heavy losses. During the first year of its operation the loss amounted to £1,600,000, and the next year it made a loss of £1,300,000. On a national revenue of £40,000,000 in those days, excluding the Post Office, those figures were, of course, quite dangerous. In an effort to rectify the position, the government of the day wrote the capital of the line down from £14,000,000 to f 4,000,000. That was a very drastic attempt by the accounting people to put the line on a proper basis. It then proceeded to lose £2,000,000 more, and that became too much for flesh and blood and the national budget to stand, and so the line was sold.
– How much did the Government get for it?
– I heard it said in this House that the Government never received a penny of the purchase money. I heard that when listening to the debate last night. I think the honorable gentleman from Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin) said that. What he said was false. It is true that there was an ultimate residue of purchase money amounting to £280,000 which was not paid because of the default of the purchaser; but that surely does not affect the validity of the argument in favour of the purchase. If the honorable gentleman who has interjected owned some ramshackle motor car which he decided in his wisdom he should get rid of-
– The ships were not ramshackle.
– I am referring to the motor car. If he is offended I withdraw the word “ ramshackle “. If a man has an asset, a piece of property, which, in his wisdom, he decides that he will get rid of, the fact that the purchaser defaults with respect to a part of the purchase money does not invalidate the wisdom of the decision to dispose of the asset.
One of the great factors contributing to the heavy losses that were incurred by the government shipping line after World War I. was the industrial turmoil and strife which occurred in those days. I well remember that one of the stories that was told was that the stewards of those days solved the washing-up problem by chucking all the crockery through the portholes. That solves the washing-up problem, but, as any father of a family will know, it is a bit hard on the budget - whether it is a national budget or a domestic budget. That line was sold.
Then in World War II. it again became necessary to acquire ships under the national security regulations, and that was done. I remind the House that so hardened and so intransigent a socialist as Senator Ashley, commenting on that event in the Senate, in the 1949 debates, said that the additional ships had to be bought and operated because there was a shortage of ships during the war, but he said expressly that this was not a reflection upon the shipping companies. Even from that quarter, there was an acknowledgment that that is just one of the things that happen. After the wai-, the Commonwealth shipping line incurred terrific losses. Again, the losses were due very largely to industrial practices, as well as to mismanagement. I have heard a lot of figures misquoted in this House. Let me give the official figures. Between 1947 and 1950, under the Chifley Government, losses amounting to something like £7,400,000 were incurred.
Labour’s remedy was, not to rationalize the line and make it more efficient, but to socialize the whole of the shipping industry. So the Chifley Government brought in its famous, or infamous, 1949 bill. I was present in the House then, and I take some pleasure in saying that I took part in the debates on that bill. There was to be a shipping board to run the whole of the shipping of Australia. There was to be no shipbuilding without a licence from the Government. There was to be no interstate trading by private companies without a licence from the Government. No ship more than 24 years old was to trade without a licence from the Government, with a discretionary power left in the Minister’s hands.
Sere, in effect, was complete machinery for the destruction of the private shipping companies and the socialization of the Australian shipbuilding industry. The mercy is that the Chifley Government, although it was in office for months after that, did not bring that legislation into force. I suggest that the more moderate elements of the Labour party were appalled at what they were proposing to do. So they hesitated and did not do it. Then they went out of office, and the Australian shipbuilding industry was saved. “When we came into power in 1949, our first action was to rationalize the shipping industry, to make it more efficient and to make it pay. By March, 1952, an operational loss of nearly £2,000,000 in a previous year had been turned into a profit of £739,000.
– Because of Mr. Dewey.
– I heard it said last night that it was because Mr. Dewey came on the scene - he was, I think, chosen by the Chifley Government just before it went out of office - that this line suddenly became a. profitable line, ls not it the worst possible denunciation of the Chifley Government to say that it took from 1945 to 1950 - all those years - to wake up to the need for more efficient management?
– Mr. Dewey was a good man.
– Mr. Dewey was a firstclass man. I had the privilege of working closely with him. I think he was a fine choice, and I was sorry to see him leave Australia. The point is the Labour government of that day permitted the Commonwealth shipping line to incur losses, one year after another totalling £7,400,000. “When this Government came into office, it adopted the privateenterprise recommendations of Mr. Dewey - because hp is essentially an apostle of private enterprise - and in 1952 the line made a profit of £739,000. In 1953, it made a profit of £630.000; in 1954, of £870,000; and in 1955, of £800,000. “We have made this an efficient and a profitable line. I compare our performance with that of the Labour government. “While Labour was operat ing this line, it never, as far as I recollect, made a profit. Certainly, in the result, it incurred losses amounting to £7,400,000.
Having brought the matter up to date, I should like to reply to some of the arguments that have been advanced during the debate about the Government’s motives in proposing this legislation. The first suggestion is that, by these two measures, the Government is attempting to destroy the Commonwealth shipping line. Anybody who can read the bills can see the facts. In view of those facts, that is an irresponsible charge, but in this place even irresponsible charges have to be answered. I make this answer: If we wanted to destroy the Government line, surely we would have sold it long ago.
– You tried.
– Of course we tried. This is a private-enterprise Government.
Opposition members interjecting,
– This touches the socialists on the raw. They have only one doctrine. They say, “Let the Government run everything. Destroy private enterprise! It does not matter whether government enterprises are run in a ramshackle, muddling and incompetent way. Let the Government run them “. They are witnesses of the fallacy of their arguments. We would have sold the line-
– But you could not.
– Of course we could not. In the national interest, we laid down certain conditions - first, that the price paid should be a fair price ; secondly, that the ships should be kept on the Australian coast; thirdly, that certain trades which we regarded as essential developmental trades should be served by the ships; and, fourthly, that the Australian shipbuilding industry should be supported. After negotiations - I make no criticism of anybody and I accept that there was goodwill on both sides the shipping companies were unable to accept the very rigid terms which the Government had laid down, in the national interest, as it considered. We have never deviated from that point of view.
Because it was not possible to sell the line on terms that we thought would protect the Australian taxpayers, we maintained it. We have made it pay, which is more than Labour was able to do in its day. Now we are going further. We are preserving the line by statute. We are giving it virtually perpetual life by statutory provision. We are giving it a wide measure of autonomy and great competitive power. Surely that is the answer to the suggestion that we are trying to destroy the Government shipping line. We have not sold it. We are giving it, by statute, perpetual life. We are giving it autonomy and a great measure of competitive power.
The second argument relates to tonnage, and is bound up with the first argument. I heard some very inaccurate statements made about tonnage. We have provided in these bills that the present ceiling tonnage for the Commonwealth shipping line shall be 325,000 gross tons. At present, the line is operating 155,000 tons, and some ships are under construction. There is a current building programme covering 73,000 tons and an approved building programme covering 19,000 tons. The ships now operating have a tonnage of 155,000. but the. Government is raising the ceiling tonnage to 325,000, which means that there will be a pretty hefty government fleet. In conjunction with the fleets of the private lines, this will provide a magnificent shipping service to Australian ports for many years. But the Government goes further. If the Minister is of opinion that a proper shipping service is not provided on the Australian coast he may ask an independent authority to investigate the situation, and if that authority comes to the conclusion that shipping tonnage must be increased, the Government will give the private companies the opportunity to build more ships.
– In Australia?
– Yes. and that is the answer *;o the talk about the Government’s not supporting the Australian shipbuilding industry.
– There is not one ship on order in Australia for the private companies.
– The reason is that an attempt was made by the socialist government to strangle the Australian shipbuilding industry, and it has been necessary for this Government to re-establish confidence in the industry. This bill attempts to do that, and then to go further and insist that orders by private companies for more ships shall be placed with Australian shipbuilding yards. If the private companies do not accept the Government’s invitation to build more ships then this measure carries its own penalties.
– The twelve ships now on order by private companies are being built in overseas yards.
Sir Eric Harrison. - On a point of order. Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, I direct your attention to the fact that the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) has left his seat, come to the table and is deliberately interjecting.
– Order! The honorable member for Werriwa is out of order in interjecting out of his place.
– On a point of order. I was nominated, in accordance with Standing Orders, by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), to lead for the Opposition in the. debate on this bill. I am entitled, therefore, to sit at the table, and to speak from this position, as Mr. Deputy Speaker allowed me to do yesterday.
– Order ! The House must come to order. There has been a great deal of irrelevant interjection, and I ask the House to hear the Minister in silence.
– I do not mind where the honorable member for Werriwa sits so long as he does not yell out too loudly. Ha is a good friend of mine. T should hate to think that he would make it impossible for me to finish my speech within the time allotted. In this measure, the Government has provided that if increased shipping tonnage is necessary the private companies will have an opportunity to build more ships, but if they do not exercise that option the government line will build more ships, and to the extent government tonnage increases, private tonnage will be superseded. [Quorum formed.] It will be necessary, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, by reason of the action taken by the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin) in directing attention to the state of the House, for me to truncate what I intended to say, but I shall summarize by pointing out that the Government has provided in the bill that, to the extent to which the private companies do not provide the tonnage required to maintain shipping services on the coast, the Government will build extra ships in Australian yards. The bill provides also for ample capital to be made available from Consolidated Revenue to the Commonwealth line for the building of further ships as required. The bill provides, further, that nonpaying lines will be operated by the Commonwealth line, and subsidized from Consolidated Revenue, so that the competitive power of the Commonwealth line will not be diminished.
These provisions are surely a complete answer to the nonsense about the Government’s alleged attempt to strangle the Commonwealth shipping line. The Commonwealth line will continue to compete with every private shipping line now operating throughout Australia. The effect of this will be to ensure a vigorous, progressive and independent Commonwealth line with a high competitive power, putting private lines on their mettle. A similar course was followed in the case of Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. But the real incentive - or to state it conversely, the real penalties which private lines will suffer will be that if they are not as efficient as the Commonwealth line, to that extent they will diminish and the Commonwealth line will increase. It has been said that the Government is favouring the private lines. It is endeavouring to preserve them because it believes in private enterprise. If they are not preserved they will die out, and the result will be an inefficient Government monopoly; but by putting them on. a competitive basis they will be compelled to seek out all the trade they can obtain. Any extra ships they build will have to be constructed in Australian yards, and they will be assisted by the Government subsidy of 33-J per cent., which was recommended by the Tariff Board. The Government will give them the opportunity to increase their tonnage if an independent authority finds that this should be done, but if they do not do that, they will lose, to the Commonwealth line, the extra trade they might otherwise have had. The result of the agreement embodied in this legislation will be that more ships will be operating on the Australian coast, and there will be increased trade and better service, greater economy in shipping, a reduction in cost of living, and a healthy Australian shipbuilding industry.
Sitting suspended from to 2.15 p.m.
– The two bills which we are considering are obviously of very great importance, not only to the future of the shipbuilding and shipping trades in Australia, but also to the interests of the Australian consumers and the producers who make use of the ships, especially the primary producers. For that reason I was very astonished at the attitude of those members of the Australian Country party who spoke to the bill. Once upon a time the policy of the Australian Country party included a provision for safeguarding the Commonwealth line. The party was opposed to proposals for making the Commonwealth line of secondary importance in the shipping of primary products interstate and overseas; but that attitude seems to have changed. Indeed, the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie), completely misreading clauses 17 and IS of the bill for the purpose of establishing the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, made much of the point that the Minister will fix the freights. He said, correctly, that the commission’s rate of charges will be subject to the approval of the Minister. That is perfectly correct. But clause 19, -which he cited as indicating some control to keep freights down, states -
In exercisin.it his powers under this section, the Minister shall have regard to the duties of the Commission under the last preceding sub-section.
The last preceding sub-section is in clause LS, which provides that the commission shall pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue sufficient to meet all its expenditure properly chargeable to revenue and to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on the capital of the commission.
My point, which the honorable member for Moore did not mention, although I suppose he knew it, is that clause 18, read in conjunction with clause 19, means that the commission is to do its business as a private contractor, to make profits and to pay taxes, and that therefore the Minister is permitted, when exercising his powers in relation to the approval of freight rates, to have regard to that matter. The purpose of clause 19 is to prevent the commission from reducing freights. That is the importance of that clause. I mention it only by way of illustration. The honorable member for Moore has completely misconceived its meaning. The Minister certainly has that power of approval, but we must look at the legislation as a whole to determine what it means. The two bills together are designed to establish a shipping commission - I submit that this sums up the position accurately - to operate the Commonwealth line. They set out conditions, many of which are embodied in the agreement. The Commonwealth on the one hand and the private shipping and stevedoring interests on the other - I emphasize the stevedoring interests - are parties to the agreement. I emphasize also a point that is not mentioned in the bill, namely, that the stevedoring companies and the shipping companies are a combination, and that most of the stevedoring companies are controlled either by the interstate shipping companies or the overseas shipping companies. Therefore, this agreement having been made, one can appreciate precisely the purpose of it. Its purpose, in my submission, is to secure for this interstate combine of shipping companies and stevedores, with which the overseas companies are also connected, particularly through the stevedoring companies and some of the shipping companies, a set of rules which will continue the effective monopoly in that trade which is now possessed by the combine.
It is perfectly true, as stated by the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) that the Government tried to sell the line and failed. What does that mean? Does that reflect any credit on the Government ? Of course, it does not. The Government tried to sell the line, but the shipping companies would not pay the price demanded for it. The Government wanted, I understand, something in the neighbourhood of £18,000,000, £20,000,000 or £22,000,000, and the shipping companies would not agree. The Government is proposing, by means of this legislation, to put the shipping combine in a position which will guarantee it for twenty years a continuance of the present monopoly and the gradual disappearance from the stage of the ships owned by the people of Australia. Every obstacle is put in the way of competition with the combine. This agreement precludes competition. The Government has adopted a proposal which is worse than a direct sell-out of the ships, much as we would be opposed to that. The latter would be a course for which the Government would have to take direct political responsibility. But no, the Government has achieved its purpose in this way.
Every clause of this agreement, to which I shall refer in a moment, is designed to protect the combined interstate shipping companies and stevedoring companies, and to allow them to continue to operate as they have operated in the past under this Government. There is no real answer to our criticism of its actions. It is perfectly useless for members of the Australian Country party to make attacks upon the seamen. They always attack the seamen, the workers in the seafaring industry, until the crisis of war exists, when they recognize the great job that the seamen are doing for Australia. This legislation is part of a plan, the first part of which was the legislation affecting waterside workers. It is an attempt by the Government to set up a smoke screen under which this bargain can be made, a very improper bargain, and in some respects, I submit, a bargain which defrauds the people of Australia, cheating them of the assets which they built up during the war and post-war period for the purpose of protecting the Australian people, the consumers, and particularly the primary producers. It is shocking, and I submit disgraceful, that the Australian Country party, which was established to protect the interests of the primary producers, should fail to appreciate the importance of this move against a vital transport facility. The primary producers do not want transport at any cost; they want transport under reasonable conditions. Under this Government, freights have risen continuously and the burden has been imposed upon the primary producers and consumers. That has been one of the circumstances that has contributed to the present inflation.
How is the Government’s objective to be achieved? First, the commission, which is, after all, the Commonwealth or the people, will administer the ships for which the people have paid and which were bought solely in their interests. On the outbreak of war the merchant ships of Australia, which were so necessary to effective transport in war-time, were gradually taken away from the coast, and this fleet had to be rebuilt, largely by the activities of the Labour government, although it alone was not concerned with the dispersal of the ships of the Commonwealth line. A previous anti-Labour government, the Bruce-Page Government, had sold the ships which were purchased during World War I., when the freights charged to primary producers were so extortionate that ships simply had to be bought in order to save our primary producers from ruin. The Commonwealth ships saved the people and the primary producers of Australia tens of millions of pounds. What happened ? After a number of years, a committee of this House reported that the operation of the ships should be continued, but somehow or other the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Bruce, got the committee to reverse its report and to advise that the ships could not be operated in a businesslike way as a profitmaking enterprise and should be sold. They were sold to a combine of shipowners, and the ironic feature of the whole matter was that the purchasing company, of which Lord Kylsant was the head, did not even pay the final purchase money to complete the bargain. Lord Kylsant eventually ended in disaster because of the fraudulent way in which his own company was conducted, and he was convicted by a jury. His offence, of course, had no relation to the Commonwealth ships.
This bill will, in the clearest possible terms, put a deliberate limit upon the natura] expansion of the shipping activities of the Commonwealth authority. Clause 7 (1.) of the schedule limits the shipping that the Commonwealth can operate to 325,000 tons for a period of twenty years from the present time. Therefore, less than 80,000 tons, apart from the shipping covered by the agreement, can be added to the tonnage of Commonwealth ships. That, of course, is less than 4,000 tons a year over the twenty years. I suggest that it is a pretence and a sham to say that this measure provides for the expansion of what should become a great shipping line, because it does nothing of the sort. The Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) admitted that when he analysed the clauses of the measure this morning. ‘He said that the tonnage can be increased only in circumstances which are within the control of the private shipping companies.
The procedure in respect of increasing the tonnage of Commonwealth ships starts with a report made by the commission to the Minister. Then the Minister suggests to the private companies that they should build more ships. However, in this transaction it is not the decision of the Minister that counts. There is to be an independent authority - he may be an accountant, a solicitor or a barrister from somewhere - who is to decide this matter of grave public policy as to whether extra tonnage is to be added to the coastal shipping of Australia.
There is no doubt that that is one of the most disgraceful portions of the bill, because the tonnage available on the coast of Australia may be of vital defence importance. Therefore, the view of the Government of the day and of the Parliament of the day should prevail, and not the view of some independent arbitrator. What would he know about it? The arbitrator is not there to determine questions of public policy, and I know of no act of Parliament in which a commercial section has been inserted. I suggest that those provisions show quite clearly that the agreement has been drafted by the representatives of the shipowners. I ask the Minister to produce the correspondence in relation to this drafting matter -presumably there is none.
– Bring the solicitors in for cross-examination.
– That does not necessarily mean the solicitors. People have put their heads together to decide how they could tie up the Commonwealth and make the position of the shipping combine more secure. So much for the portions of the agreement that deal with tonnage
Now, let us consider stevedoring operations and the booking of freight. During World War II., in order to save manpower, the private shipping companies booked freight for the Commonwealth line of ships. That has been continued by this Government. But what does that mean now ? If a merchant wants to send goods by sea, and two ships are available and he goes along to the booking office in order to book his goods, let honorable members ask themselves who will handle the transaction. The answer to that question is quite clear. The representative of the shipping combine will handle it. Is it likely that that representative will send the cargo or the particular consignment by a ship of the Commonwealth line when he could use a ship of the companies that he represents? Moreover, the condition that I have described will be continued for twenty years by this agreement.
It is quite clear that the agreement will effectively prevent business competition from being built up that will give the Australian people the benefit of reduced freights - if freights can be reduced by the Commonwealth line. Of course, there are certain circumstances in which that practice could be altered, but the general position will remain and, indeed, is much the same in respect of stevedoring. The stevedoring for the Commonwealth ships, which are supposed to be run in competition with the ships of the combine, will be carried out by stevedoring companies which are controlled by the shipping combine. It is true that in very elaborate circumstances there might be an arbitrator who might decide that the stevedoring arrangements are not operating satisfactorily, but broadly the position is as I have stated.
So honorable members will see that we shall be delivered hand and foot for twenty years into the hands of those whose only interest is to make profits. They have no public duty to perform as the Commonwealth shipping line has. Their interest is not the interest of the people. It is their duty as directors of private companies to make the maximum amount of profit possible, and they carry out their duties undoubtedly with great efficiency and with sole regard to it. According to the measure, the expansion of the line of ships will be controlled by private companies, and for twenty years there will be a monopoly of the natural expansion of shipping around Australia. In that time our coastal trade might be doubled, trebled or quadrupled, but the Commonwealth is completely excluded from participating in any such expansion hecause preference will go always to the shipping combine.
There are all sorts of burdens and limitations which will hinder the Commonwealth line from expanding. Stevedoring operations will be substantially controlled by the private companies connected with shipping firms, and it is well known that stevedoring companies charge exorbitant rates. There is a provision in this regard for an appeal against the stevedoring rates to an independent authority, but I suggest that that provision would probably turn out to be quite useless. Does this Government believe in competition? It talks enough about private enterprise, but the essence of private enterprise as it used to be understood was competition between private industries.
This measure will prevent any such competition, and is designed to set up a further monopoly or entrench monopoly in the already strong position that it now occupies. It is completely opposed to any policy that the Liberal party - those people who called themselves Liberals - believed in, because the central idea of their policies was to let competition prevail. We want the Commonwealth line to compete with the shipping combine, but the purpose of this legislation is to prevent that from occurring. What is the use of talking in abstract phrases about socialism? This is not an attempt by the Opposition to prevent competition between the Commonwealth line and the private shipping lines. We want competition to take place. Competition has !,een part of the policy of this Government for a long time, but it seems obvious that we have a government now which is so much the agent and creature of the combine that it will give all possible advantages to the shipping companies in order to ensure that no competition is possible. I suggest that the only alternative to such a state of affairs would be for the Government to control the whole of the coastal shipping through a well-, controlled commission.
This Government will make it impossible for competition to take place, and it is therefore a sham for it to say that it believes in competition. Every clause in the agreement illustrates this. The hill will hand to the private companies hU the booking of freights on the Commonwealth line. It is quite true that the business has been carried on in that way. That is one of the reasons why Mr. Dewey, the efficient manager appointed by the late Mr. Chifley, who had successfully conducted the Commonwealth line since 1949, with substantial profits, gave up his position in the end. He felt - and I am sure his opinion can be verified by a perusal of the documents relating to the matter - that the Commonwealth line was not getting a fair go from the Government. He was an expert - one of the ablest men in Great Britain - and he was specially chosen to fill this position.
Let honorable members consider for a moment the implications of this sort of booking. It is as though Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and other airlines were permitted to do the booking for Trans-Australia Airlines. If that should occur, what would happen to the passengers? They would be booked on Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. But the position is worse than that. We know that bookings by air made by private companies are for the benefit of Australian National AirwaysProprietary Limited because there is interlocking between Austraiian National Airways Proprietary Limited and some of these shipping lines and between the shipping combine and other great industrial interests in Australia. The coal industry, for example, is largely controlled, through its shareholding, by the shipping companies. When one looks through the names of directors and shareholders one sees that the pattern is the characteristic pattern of all combines.
Indeed, it is a combine in excelsis, and may be called a cartel. It consists of shipping interests, private airline interests such as Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and great, interests in other industrial sections of our economy.
The proposed commission will be required to undertake unprofitable business at the direction of the Minister, and to provide developmental services which, I admit, should be conducted by the shipping of Australia. For example, the north-west of Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmania need to be serviced. Sometimes the Commonwealth ships arn to perform a service whether there is a profit in it or not. How are those losses to be treated? The Commonwealth line should be allowed to compete so that it. can win the trade, but that will not happen because of a dastardly clause which has been inserted in this agreement. I shall explain its operation. Let us suppose that the Minister directs the Commonwealth line to undertake a special service in Western Australia, and that there is a loss of £500,000 on that service during the year. If, on all the operations of the Commonwealth line, there is a loss of only £10,000 - matters being fairly evenly balanced - the Commonwealth will reimburse the Commonwealth line, through the commission, to the extent of the lesser of the two sums - not the £500,000 which it has been forced to lose in order to develop a particular area, but the £10,000 which has been lost on the whole of the operations of the line over the year. Of course the result will be that the Commonwealth line’s balance-sheet, instead of showing a profit of £490,000, will show a loss of £10,000. That illustrates the way in which this agreement has been manipulated. It is hard to imagine that people could put their heads together to do such a treacherous thing to Australia. The Government is trying to push this bill through the House in the hope that honorable members will not see through the guarded language that has been used. If honorable members will compare the actual clauses of the agreement with the pretended intentions of the Government, they will agree that the language is very odd indeed. As I have pointed out, the Commonwealth line will have to undertake unprofitable business when so directed by the Minister and will be inadequately compensated.
Not only are these obstacles being placed in the way of the profitable operation of the Commonwealth line, but, as is revealed in the clause that I have cited in answering the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie), the rates charged by the Commonwealth line must be sufficient to return a reasonable rate of profit on the capital invested, to pay taxation, and to meet other charges. This will ensure that the freight charges of that line will be “ sufficiently high “ to prevent undercutting of the rates charged by the private combine which will operate on the most profitable coastal routes, and never undertake the developmental work which would be shared equally if there were proper control or, in the absence of such control, would be left to the discretion of the Commonwealth line itself.
I believe that it is necessary to elaborate upon the profits made in the period under review. The Commonwealth line became profitable in the later post-war years, not as a result of particular efficiency in those years, but simply because this Government, when it came to office, allowed the freight rates to go up. As a result of the higher freights, the profits made by the private companies were very considerable. In 1950, Huddart Parker Limited showed a. .profit of 13 per cent., in 1951 17 per cent., in 1952 15 per cent, in 1953 24 per cent., and in 1954 - the last year for which the figures are available - 25 per cent. One has always to bear in mind that the percentage is not always based on the capital originally invested but often on that capital watered down by previous profits. The earnings that I have mentioned are, of course, equalled by those of the private overseas companies to which the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) and the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) have referred.
What is the lesson to be learned from this?- The history of the old Australian Commonwealth line of steamers reveals that certain preliminary steps were taken before that line was sold out at far below its true value. Control of the line was placed in the hands of a commission, and its operations were so hindered that it could not operate effectively. Four years afterwards the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, announced that the overall operation of the line was not satisfactory, and that its assets would be disposed of. The truth is that, though the Government claims that it wants to avoid monopoly and foster competition, its real objective is the establishment of complete monopoly in Australia. Every clause of the agreement, and every proposal in the bills, makes it practically certain that the Commonwealth line will not be carried on successfully. Every burden possible is being placed upon it. The Government’s intention is that when, in the fullness of time, the new commission reports that the line’s operations are unprofitable, some antiLabour government will - perhaps after a few more years - say, “ It is a. failure. Let us do what Mr. Bruce did and sell it “. It will then be sold out to the combine, which will buy the ships which are, on average, ten years old, at a price far below that which would have had to be paid for them had the recent negotiations for their sale been successful. The combine will thus strengthen its old fleet, which has an average age of 24 years, at the public expense.
This brings us face to face with what is to be done about this matter. Parliaments come and parliaments go. The Government did not tell the people of this plan. This is not an open sale which can be assessed at its true worth but, as other honorable members have said, an indirect and snide way of injuring the Commonwealth line. The Labour party has considered this matter and is not prepared to accept the decision of the Parliament upon it. Indeed, how could the Parliament be expected to pronounce judgment upon it when the matter did not go before the electors ? I repeat what has been said on behalf of the Labour party in another place : Labour will not tolerate the operation of this agreement to the detriment of the Commonwealth line. It will see ‘that the Commonwealth line is protected. Labour will not be led astray by the trick of saying, “ It is for two years “. It is for twenty years. If necessary we will submit the question specifically to the people of Australia, and I believe that they will vote against a government that has acted in consort with the shipping combine to cheat the people of one of their greatest assets.
Mr.WARD (East Sydney) [2.45].- Mr. Deputy Speaker-
Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) put -
That the question be now put.
The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 44
NOES: 22
Majority . . . . 22
In division:
AYES
NOES
– Order ! The honorable member for East Sydney will apologize to the Chair for that statement.
– I do, but that does not alter the fact.
– I am sorry he did.
– Order ! The honorable member for East Sydney will again apologize to the Chair, or I will name him when this division is over.
– I apologize.
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C.F. Adermann.)
AYES: 44
NOES: 22
Majority . . . . 22
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma,; progress reported.
Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) proposed -
That the House will, at a later hour this day, again resolve itself into the Committee ofthe Whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker requiring honorable members in favor to call “Aye”, and those against to call “ No “ , and honorable members calling accordingly,
Opposition members rising in their places,
Question put. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 44
NOES: 22
Majority . . . . 22
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 3324
Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 3029), on motion by Mr. Townley -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question put -
That the bill be read a second time.
The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 45
NOES: 22
Majority . . . . 23
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma.
Motion (by SirEric Harbison) put -
That progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 44
NOES: 22
Majority . . 22
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Progress reported.
Motion (by SirEricharrison) put -
That the House will, at a later hour this day, again resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.
The House divided. (Mb. Deputy Speakeb - Mr. C.F. Adermann.)
AYES: 43
NOES: 22
Majority 21
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 3326
In committee: Consideration resumed (vide page 3324).
– Is it the will of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole ?
Opposition Members. - No !
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! If the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) does not show some respect for the Chair, I shall put him out of the chamber.
– When I called “No”, I was exercising my right to say that I disagreed. I know enough of the Standing Orders to know that I may do that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! That is enough. I, too, am entitled to some rights under the Standing Orders.
Clause 1 (Short title).
Question put -
That the clause be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 42
NOES: 22
Majority . . . . 20
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 2 (Commencement).
.- I desire to oppose clause 2, which provides as follows -
This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by ‘Proclamation.
Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) put -
That the question be now put.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 43
NOES: 20
Majority . . . . 23
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put -
That the clause be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 42
NOES: 20
Majority . . . . 22
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 3 (Parts).
– I oppose the clause. I should like to point out to the committee that it states -
This Act is divided into Parts, as follows: -
Part I. - Preliminary (Sections 1-6).
Part II. - The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission.
Division 1. - Establishment and Constitution of the Commission (Sections 7-14).
– I rise to order. The honorable member has the wrong bill.
– The Minister has the wrong one.
– The committee is considering the Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement Bill 1956.
– It is considering the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill 1956.
– Order! The committee is considering the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill 1956, not the Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement Bill 1956.
– Is the Minister’s point of order overruled, then?
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Yes. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) is in order.
– Did the Minister have the wrong bill ?
– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) had the wrong bill during the consideration of the two clauses that have just been agreed to by the committee.
– Keep your hair on.
– The honorable member for East Sydney has said the Minister should keep his hair on. [ do not know what that has to do with this bill or with the clause under consideration.
– Order ! I am of the same opinion. I ask the honorable member for Hindmarsh to get back to the clause.
– The committee can see now how important it was for me to direct attention to the clause. Until I rose, the Minister for Air (Mr. Townley) was under the impression that the committee was considering a bill that is not before it. He was looking at an entirely different bill which he had in his hand.
– He has the correct bill now.
– He has the correct bill now; so let us hope he will be able to take an intelligent interest in what I am saying. The clause continues -
Division 2. - Functions, Powers and Duties of the Commission (Sections 15-20).
– Will the honorable member read it again ?
– If the honorable member did not hear me, I shall read it again. It is -
Division 2. - Functions, Powers and Duties of the Commission (Sections 15-20).
The rest of the clause continues -
Division 3. - Staff (Sections 21-27).
Division 4. - Finances of the Commission (Sections 28-30).
Division 5. - Reports (Sections 37-39).
I am particularly interested in Part II.
– That contains sections 37 to 43.
– The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) still has not the right bill.
– I have. I have been following it all the way through.
– Part III. contains sections 40 to 43.
– Part IV. deals with the miscellaneous sections.
– Part IV., if that is what the Minister was looking at, contains sections 44 to 50. The Minister was wrong again. My contribution to this discussion has done one thing. It has made it obvious to the committee that neither of the Ministers seated at the table had the right bill. They both had an entirely different bill, which is not even before the committee. How can they expect to follow the debate intelligently when they are not even looking at the bill under consideration? I wish to direct attention especially to the description in this clause of Part II. of the bill. That part is divided into five divisions. It is bad enough to divide the bill into four separate parts, as the clause indicates. If honorable members look at the bill carefully, they will see that Part II. is in five divisions. In other words, the bill is divided into four parts, of which Part II. is again divided into five divisions. In spite of what has been said, I think it is important that the committee should have a look at the divisions which constitute Part II. Division 1 is headed “Establishment and Constitution of the Commission “.
– I rise to order. I should like to know whether the Standing Order enable the honorable member for Hindmarsh to make a complete farce of the parliamentary system, and to bring this chamber into disrepute with those members of the community who are listening to the broadcast of these proceedings.
– Order ! The Standing Orders do not provide that the honorable member cannot do that. However, it is not in order for an honorable member to indulge in tedious repetition.
– Does not the honorable member’s performance to date constitute tedious repetition?
– The honorable member has not, so far, been repetitive. He has referred to different parts of the bill, and to different divisions of one of the parts.
– The first clause of division 1 of Part II. refers to the establishment of the commission. Clause 8 deals with the constitution of the commission. Clause 9 contains provision in relation to acting members. Clause 10 relates to leave of absence. Clause 11 refers to the remuneration of members. Clause 12 has reference-
Motion (by Mr. Lawrence) put -
That the honorable member be not further hoard.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 39
NOES: 21
Majority . . 18
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
.- Mr. Temporary Chairman-
Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) put-
That the question be now put.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 43
NOES: 21
Majority . . 22
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put -
That the clause be agreed to.
The committee divided. (Thetemporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 42
NOES: 22
Majority . . . . 20
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Progress reported.
House adjourned at 3.55 p.m.
page 3330
The following answers to questions were circulated: -
Uranium.
Mr.Riordan asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice -
Is a reward paid to those who discover uranium-bearing deposits?
If so, what is the maximum reward payable?
Is a less sum than the maximum paid to those persons finding such deposits; if so, why*1
Has the maximum reward been paid to those who found the lease known as the Mary Kathleen Lease in the Cloncurry-Mount Isa area?
If not, is it intended to pay the finders the maximum reward, and when will it be paid?
Has a reward been paid to those who found what is known as the Milo Lease in the Cloncurry Lease owned by Robertson and party?
If a reward less than the maximum has been paid, why has this syndicate not received the maximum reward?
Is it intended to pay them the maximum reward; if so, when?
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 June 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1956/19560615_reps_22_hor11/>.