Download Fragment

Tuesday, 14 September 1937

Mr McEWEN (Echuca) .- On the point made by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) I find myself in complete agreement. I emphasize this fact because of the attempt of the Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) to strengthen his case for the amendment by remarking that I gazed with adoration on the honorable member for Dalley when he was criticizing the bill. As' a matter of fact I was in sharp conflict with the honorable member in the second reading debate, as the nature of his interjections during my speech will indicate. The purpose of the amendment is to change a specific obligation to an indefinite one. Let us examine the agreement and see for what purposes the appropriations will be made if the amendment is agreed to. The first provision is for £334,000 to meet Commonwealth liabilities arising under the agreement; the second contingent liability is the payment of a bounty under paragraph 13 of the agreement, and a third contingency is the possibility of the Government being asked to grant relief under paragraph 24. The provision for the appropriation of £334,000 is covered by the bill as drafted. In regard to the second contingent liability, paragraph 13 provides that in the event of the Commonwealth Government, at some future date, reducing the import duty on petrol, thus lowering the rate of protection which otherwise would be enjoyed by the company, the Government should, concurrently with the lowering of the import duty, introduce a bill for the payment of a bounty equivalent to the amount of the reduction.

Mr JOHN LAWSON (MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES) - What would be Mr. Davis's position if the Government "refused to introduce a bill to provide for the payment of a bounty?

Mr McEWEN - As a party to an agreement which had been dishonored, Mr. Davis would have redress at law.

Sir Archdale Parkhill - He would have no redress, unless this amendment is carried.

Mr McEWEN - I shall pass to paragraph 24 of the schedule which visualizes that after the Commonwealth has advanced to the company £334.000 in capital and a certain eventuality has transpired, namely, the discovery of flow oil in such quantities as to make the production of oil from shale unprofitable, the Commonwealth is to be committed to grant " adequate relief ". This brings me back to the point which I raised in my second-reading speech concerning 'the interpretation likely to be placed upon the words " adequate relief " - that a government could give something which most of us would " regard as very adequate relief by writing ofl the advance of £334,000 even without making any new appropriation of money. Thus I can only construe the substitution of .an unlimited appropriation for a specific one as meaning that the Government visualizes the possibility of giving adequate relief not only by writing off the money advanced but also by actually recouping the company some of its own money which, in those circumstances, it would have lost.

Mr Beasley - That is a very strong point.

Mr McEWEN - I should say that it may not bc entirely impossible for a government actuated by motives of defence necessities to convince the House that it is necessary to grant even more adequate relief than the writing off of such a vast sum of money as £334,000. But if that is in the mind of the Government let it be candid about the matter and say that that is one of the purposes of the Minister's proposed amendment. Wo should then be enabled to judge the proposal on its merits. For my part, however, I am not prepared to support an amendment, which, in the absence of any convincing explanation by the Minister, might mean leaving any future government, purely by executive act, not only to write off the " sum of £334,000 hereby advanced, but also to make even a further advance of money under the terms of this agreement in the guise of recouping the company for money it may have lost, possibly, as might be claimed, in an endeavour to serve the country.

---