PETROL PRICES

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 238, 9 May 1933, Page 2

PETROL PRICES

Australian Commission ! I ATTITUDE OF CONFERENCE Sydney, April 27. j;.. An extraordinary position has arisen in connection with the H Royal Commission set up by the m Federal Government, after years of p agitation, to inquire t into the price ;> of petrol and into oilier matters associated with this.vast industry. The f| represent at, i n s of.all . th ( r-wjor -m • M panieKOp;: 'ug in th .m> vaKli ffi have .•' ■■•'• to'gv~o ■:; .nformaf tion o ■. i uieir pr:< - lidding, and 1 after i i*. «:oceei~iUo3 had >'Pen openM ed last "week the Royal C jmmissioner h;; had.'.no •■-•titer alternative but to ndP journ the inquiry sine die. It now M rests with the Commonwealth Government to decide the next move ,n ,•'. this battle with tua companies, it is L"v not the first time that obstacles in : the way of an inquiry have been :. * placet in the way of the Government. !.,, . Not long ago the Government set up a special committee to inquire into the petrol industry, but that, committee was unable to make any progress m because the companies refused to divulge essential information. For some time now it has been suggested that the price of petrol in Australia was beyond reason, and various Governments have been urged to take steps which would bring about a reduction. There has been 6 ,vague talk about exploitation by the companies concerned, but there has t. been very little of a definite characW ' ter to show on what the charges were based. The terms of the Royal Com- ,'. mission were exceedingly wide, and were framed to ensure an exhaustive inquiry into every aspect of the im- | porfcatkm and distribution of petrol. By this means it was hoped that r.he & authorities would be able to arrive p at a decision whether the allega|v tions against the companies were jus|v titled, and future action would behas|i ed on the recommendation of the Up- Commission.

Difficulties of Inquiry At the opening of the inquiry the Commissioner (Mr. Lamb, K.C.), said that the vastness of the petrol industry was shown by tho imports for the year end<S& June, 1930—229,000,000 gallons of petrol and 120,000.000 gallons of crude oil. The inquiry would involve the. investigation of trade ;tnd trading accounts of companies doias business, Jn Australia. Any person who failed to attend when summoned by the Commissioner would be guilty of an offence, and could be arrested and fined £SOO. It is on the latter point that a weakness in thb Federal law has been discovered. While a witness can be compelled to attend the Commission, the Commission has ho power to deal with u witness-who ivfcses to answer the questions that are put to him. Apparently the companies are taking advantage of that position, and that anomaly will have to be rectified before the inquiry can proceed. The determination of the Federal Government to remove the obstacle has been r expressed*.by the Federal AttorneyGeneral.; This, however, will taks • time, and in order that there should be as little delay as possible the ."' States may be approached with a request that-they should constitute the Co:aimisb'o% This would obviate the 'J difficulty as there is no flaw in tho 'State laws. The companies claim that they are not acting in any contrary spirit. They point oui Liat there are at le„ -a. 38 t -va panics operating in Australia, i a great number of them in. a cotn- ; petitive way. They say that exposure I .of the details of their business to I .competitors would possibly have di3jaslroua results. On behalf of the j Shell Comp-iy it was stated urit a! ■witness viild t.'-.v.ys r»- '-rr< '.'..> j right i» <■■■'■" ihat he tii- :.;i' yiopuse j '---to 0' . ;iuc -ti- T the Vacuum OiJ ' •paii.'v \. s f-tated that ..in view of the uLifa'r criticism that bftcl been levelly' I against the companies engaged in the oil business it did not desire to shelter behind its right to refuse to answer questions. I The company, in common with y.ll ft other business concern'-, was uaiaclined to e:.pose tho'details H its yp§pßiuf»;s& to competitors, but it could Ipjpow by, sworn testimony that its L critics were either uuint'ormed or ■misinformed. It could show that its Bfrpfits had been reasonable, and %\ that its contributions to the revenue v of the federal Government had been I enormous.