Ltd company in 1955, completing a bulk-handling terminal in Wallarroo in
1958 and Port Lincoln soon after.
13.7 Arrested Development
Like much else that is odd about Australia, the objections to bulk handling
stood upon the supposed peculiarity of Australian conditions. Australia’s
wheatfields, it was argued, were closer to the coast than those on the Ameri-
can continent, making the rail component of the journey less easy to stream-
line than on the vast steel arteries that span the American continent.
Australia’s climate was more capricious and harvests were more variable,
while capital was harder to raise, and, with lower volumes of wheat, would
take longer to pay off.
While these factors undoubtedly played a part, it is clear that progress in the
grain industry was inhibited by state intervention. Government railway bureau-
craciesprovedunresponsivetotherequirementsofthefreightmarket.Drivenby
political rather than economic demands, they were reluctant to expand into
uncultivated zones where they may have become the catalyst for settlement.
Putting aside questions about the availability of private sector capital, the
chief argument for public ownership and management of infrastructure over
private investment is that it better serves the public good. The baron’s interest
in feathering his own nest is imagined to be in conflict with the greater good.
It is assumed that the technocratic expertise of disinterested bureaucrats will
be directed towards the provision of better nests all round.
Yet the evidence suggests that the self-interested capitalists of the USA were
better at promoting the public good than the disinterested bureaucrats in
Australia. There was synergy between private ambition and the public good.
The perceived tension between interests of the pioneering industrial tycoon
and the pioneering farmer are largely imagined. Both rely on the success of the
other for their own prosperity.
Hence, the rail and wheat barons played close attention to the viability of
farmers, directing their rail tracks and building their silos into territory in
which they judged there was the best opportunity for growth. That discipline
was further honed by theirfinite capital, and their personal exposure to
borrowing. Theflow of capital, therefore, followed paths dictated by the
market, unrestricted by the limited knowledge of central planners.
The morality of the sharp business practices in which tycoons engaged in
the America of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the
reticence of the judiciary or legislatures to interfere, warrants further discussion.
The regulation of business andfinance is intended to protect the public good.
Yet, judged over time, the damage to the public good of local private monopolies
Nick Cater