GEGGRAPHEC DiMEfiSIOh‘S OF
CENTRAL ARMENISTRATNE OFFICES
{N THE AUSTRAUAN. ECONOMY

flissertatécn for the Degree of 9%. D.
MiCHiGA§‘{ STATE fiNiV‘ERSiTY
EDWARD LOUIS aiYLES
1 9 7 3

 

 

E _ - _‘, , ::::7
f India‘s-132231 State
9 v 5', , ; -
Wfi [J [1?! CLSLCY

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES IN THE
AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

presented by

Edward Louis Myles

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

 

.\.Eh..D.._ degree in __Geo.g.r_a.phy

 

 

0-7639

   
 

g BINSING at g
"DAB 8 80"?
300K BlNDER‘i’ INC.
LIBRARY amnzns

C'Illfllfll? MIR-IE l I

 
       
   

,__.. gird-aw

ABSTRACT

GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES IN THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

By
Edward Louis Myles

Top level central administrative offices are not equally
distributed among Australia's major cities. Since the Commonwealth of
Australia was founded in l90l, political union has forged a cohesive
nation-state with a strong federal system of government focusing on
the national capital of Canberra. Complementing this political growth
has been the concentration of head offices and the centralization of
economic decision-making in the private sector. Central direction of
national economic activity as measured by central administrative offices
has accrued to Sydney and Melbourne at the expense of Adelaide, Bris-
bane, Perth, and Hobart.

This geographic study seeks answers to two related questions
through an analysis of the centralization of the decision-making function
in head offices of corporations and government organizations. First,
what comparative roles do the major Australian cities have in producing
regions of national dominance? Secondly, does Australia have a cent-
rally directed economy, or do the former multiple colonial economies
remain essentially spatially autonomous? The study measures the roles

of Australian cities as decision-making centers based upon the presence

Edward Louis Myles

of central administrative offices in each city. The functional region
of each city is determined from the spatial distribution of company and
government establishments and employees linked to these central offices.
The cities and their associated regions of influence are compared and
contrasted to show the relative dominance of each. The analysis of

the cities and their nodal regions is used to evaluate whether or not
Australia has a centralized or fragmented economy.

Data on some 900 of the largest private corporations and
government organizations in Australia are employed to investigate the
concentration of central administrative offices. The locations of
these offices, which control $46,000 million in assets and 2,000,000
employees, are used to measure which cities qualify as decision-making
centers. The distribution of the varied establishments of the firms
together with the location of government employees constitute the nodal
regions for these decision-making centers. The evaluation of the geo-
graphic pattern of metropolitan dominance in the Australian economy is
based upon the existence of nationwide regions and centers versus those
of less than national extent and impact.

It is concluded from this geographic analysis of central
administrative offices that Australia has three decision-making centers
with nationwide economic importance and nodal regions. They are
Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra. These three have 54 per cent of the
910 company central administrative offices which in turn control 70 per
cent of the $46,000 million assets and 69 per cent of 2,000,000 employ-
ees. Sydney is the most important center based on its strength in

number of head offices, 262, and control through them of $l3,000 million

Edward Louis Myles

assets and 496,000 employees. Strength in the tertiary sector of the
economy results in Sydney, as opposed to Melbourne, being considered
as the "Financial Center" of Australia. Melbourne's importance lies
more in head office dominance in the manufacturing sector rather than
through tertiary assets and employees. Federal Government offices and
Parliament account for Canberra's national importance. Adelaide,
Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart, and all other cities and towns are individ-
ually very weak and collectively have their greatest strength mainly
in control of a sizeable work force. The economies of these cities
and their states are substantially controlled from Sydney, Melbourne,
and Canberra, or from overseas. Approximately one-quarter of the 910
companies and their assets and employees are foreign controlled.

The geographic pattern is one of conterminous nationwide
nodal regions within which economic activity is directed from central
administrative offices in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra. This pattern
and the absence of any less-than-national decision-making regions sub-
stantiate the conclusion that Australia has a centrally directed
economy. The metropolitan dominance of that pattern derives from the
concentration of central administrative offices and top level decision-
making in Sydney and Melbourne for the private sector and in Canberra

for much of the government sector.

GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES IN THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

By

Edward Louis Myles

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Geography

l973

Copyright by
EDWARD LOUIS MYLES
l973

ii

To the Australians who made the study fun,
And the American taxpayers who paid for it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study owes much to the many Australians who willingly
told this author about themselves, their nation, and the geography of
their economy. Crucial to the final format of this study was the work
of Mr. R. 0. Block of the Development Finance Corporation and editor of
the Delfin Digests. Many other businessmen and government personnel
gave of their time and knowledge, providing substance and meaning to
the statistical data that are at the core of this study.

This dissertation is the product of many people. I wish to
express my thanks and appreciation to:

Dr. John N. Morris for his encouragement to continue in the
field of geography when other endeavors beckoned.

Dr. Allen Philbrick who provided the initial inspiration to
apply his principles of areal functional organization in a geographic
analysis of the Australian economy.

My brother, Mr. Vale Myles, who encouraged and supported
the research in a very tangible way from beginning to end. Without
this interest and concern the project may never have reached fruition.

The American taxpayers who, through their government, sup-
ported the field research with a Fulbright Fellowship; and the subse-
quent period of writing with veteran's educational benefits, and a

National Science Foundation Science Faculty Fellowship.

iv

Mr. John Morgan in Sydney, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Hewitt in
Perth, Mr. and Mrs. Doug Christie, and Miss Merlyn Christie in Mel-
bourne for their hospitality and contributions to my understanding of
the Australian way of life.

Mr. Kenneth Myles, Mr. George Myles and Mrs. Beverly Myles
Furman, my brothers and sister, for their continued encouragement,
comments and assistance during the several stages of the dissertation.

Miss Carolyn Davis for assistance in data compilation.

Dr. Stanley Brunn for his intellectual stimulation, interest
in and strong direction of the final version of the dissertation.

Dr. Lawrence Sommers for his continued faith in me and long
service on my committee.

Dr. Clarence Vinge who also served on my committee from the
beginning and gave useful guidance and constructive comments.

Dr. Michael Chubb for his comments on the final draft.

Mrs. Paula Haughey for her wide ranging efforts and many
services during the production of the dissertation.

And to my wife, Cathy Wrotenbery Myles, for seeing the dis-

sertation through with me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................
LIST OF FIGURES ........................
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ......................

rThe Problem
-The Purposes of the Dissertation
-Literature Survey

Method of Analysis

Dissertation Outline

11. DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT DATA ............

Definitions

Data Sources

Measurement Data

Introduction to Aggregate Data

The TOP 128 Delfin Companies Ranked by Assets
Delfin Major Employers

III. SYDNEY: A MODERN DECISION-MAKING CENTER ........

The Corporate Sector in Sydney
Foreign Controlled Companies with Head Offices
in Sydney
Economic Decision-Making by the Government Sector
in Sydney
Comparisons of Measures Under Three Interpretations
The Spatial Impact of Sydney

IV. MELBOURNE: COMPETITOR FOR HEAD OFFICE DECISION-MAKING .

The Corporate Sector in Melbourne

Multi-National Firms with Head Offices for
Australia in Melbourne

The Government Sector in Melbourne

Comparisons of Interpretations of Melbourne's

~ Decision-Making Function

Melbourne's Spatial Impact

vi

V. CANBERRA: THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL ...... 120

Development and the Private Sector

Canberra's Decision-Making Role Under a Broad
Interpretation

A Strict Interpretation of Canberra's Decision-
Making Role

Canberra's Spatial Impact

VI. CENTRAL OFFICES IN OTHER CAPITALS AND CITIES ...... 139

Adelaide

Brisbane

Perth

Hobart

The Spatial Impact of the Smaller Capital Cities
Delfin Companies in Non-Capital Cities and Towns

VII. FOREIGN COMPANIES IN THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY ....... 170

Companies and Industries
Nations Represented
Spatial Impact of Foreign Controlled Companies

VIII. COMPARATIVE METROPOLITAN DOMINANCE IN THE AUSTRALIAN
ECONOMY ....................... l86

Companies, Assets, and Employees
Overall Comparisons of Spatial Impact
A Centrally Directed National Economy
The "Financial Center" of Australia

IX. CONCLUSIONS ....................... 208

Conclusions

Basis for Other Studies

Value to Applied Geography

Value to Economic and Urban Geography
Postulations

LIST OF REFERENCES ....................... 222

vii

Table

\IOSU‘I-h

10.
ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Industry groups: Number of companies, assets, and

employees by group ..................
Number of Delfin companies operating in number of

states ........................
Number of total establishments of Delfin companies

in each state ....................
TOP 128 Delfin companies by assets rank ........
Summary of TOP l28 Delfin companies ..........
Delfin Major Employers .................

Delfin companies with Sydney head offices: Head
offices, assets, and employees by industry sector

Industry groups with strong or weak representation

in Sydney by companies and/or assets .........
Sydney based companies by assets echelons .......

Sydney based Major Employers ..............

Commonwealth Government organizations with head

offices in Sydney in 1966 ..............

Sydney private domestic companies and state
statutory authorities operating in number of

states ........................

Assets by areas of operations of Sydney based

companies ......................

The distribution of processing establishments

controlled from Sydney . . ..............

The number of processing establishments in each
state and percentage of state units controlled

from Sydney .....................

Page

26

28

29
31
34
37

43

45
48
53

63

7O

72

74

76

Table Page

16. The number of total establishments in each state
and the percentage of state units controlled from

Sydney ........................ 80
17. Delfin companies with Melbourne head offices; head

offices, assets, and employees by industry sector . . 86
18. Industry groups with strong or weak representation

in Melbourne by companies and/or assets ....... 88
19. Melbourne based companies by assets echelons ...... 9O
20. Melbourne based Major Employers ............ 95

21. Commonwealth Government organizations with head
offices in Melbourne in 1966 ............. 101

22. Melbourne private domestic companies and state
statutory authorities operating in number of
states ........................ 109

23. Assets by areas of operations of Melbourne based
companies ...................... 111

24. The distribution of processing establishments
controlled from Melbourne .............. 112

25. The number of processing establishments in each state

and percentage of state units controlled from

Melbourne . ..................... 114
26. The number of total establishments in each state and

the percentage of state units controlled from

Melbourne ...................... 117
27. Canberra Delfin companies ............... 122

28. Commonwealth Government departments and instrument-
alities with head offices in Canberra in 1966 . . . . 125

29. Other Commonwealth Government organizations with

head offices in Canberra ............... 127
30. Comparative measures of Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth,

and Hobart ...................... 141
31. Adelaide based companies ranked by assets ....... 143
32. Brisbane based companies ranked by assets ....... 148

ix

Table Page

33. Perth based companies ranked by assets ........ 153
34. Hobart based companies ranked by assets ....... 156
35. Area of operations of companies with head offices

in smaller capitals ................ 159
36. Processing and total Delfin establishments controlled

from smaller capitals ............... 160
37. Percentage of home state processing and total estab-

lishments controlled from state capitals ...... 161
38. Control of Delfin total establishments in states of

smaller capitals .................. 163
39. Non—capital city Delfin companies .......... 165
40. Delfin foreign controlled companies ......... 170
41. Foreign control of industry groups .......... 172

42. Foreign nations with Delfin companies operating in
Australia ..................... 175

43. Foreign controlled Delfin companies by area of
operations ..................... 177

44. Distribution of Delfin establishments controlled
by foreign companies ................ 181

45. Summary of 910 Delfin companies and assets by area
of operations ................... 195

Figure

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.
16.

LIST OF FIGURES

Australian states and capital cities ..........
Sydney central office district .............

Sydney government buildings ..............

Comparisons of broad, moderate, and strict

interpretations for Sydney ..............

Distribution of Delfin processing and total

establishments controlled from Sydney ........

The percentage of each state's Delfin processing

establishments controlled from Sydney ........

The percentage of each state's total Delfin

establishments controlled from Sydney ........
Melbourne central business district ..........

Sydney and Melbourne companies and assets in TOP 128 . .

Delfin company employees controlled from Sydney

and Melbourne ....................

Comparisons of broad, moderate, and strict

interpretations for Melbourne ............

Distribution of Delfin processing and total

establishments controlled from Melbourne .......

The percentage of each state's Delfin processing

establishments controlled from Melbourne .......

The percentage of each state's total Delfin

establishments controlled from Melbourne .......

Canberra, the capital of Australia ...........

Location of head office control of 413,600

Commonwealth Government employees ..........

xi

Page
2

4O
61

67

75

77

79
84
92

93

106

113

115

118
121

128

 

Figure

17. Comparisons of broad and strict interpretations

for Canberra .....................
18. Commonwealth civilian employees by state, 1966 .....
19. Commonwealth and State Government civilian

employees by state, 1966 ...............
20. Locations of head offices of 907 Delfin Digest

companies ......................
21. Adelaide, capital of South Australia ..........
22. Brisbane, capital of Queensland ............
23. Perth, capital of Western Australia ..........
24. Hobart, capital of Tasmania ..............

25. The percentages of Delfin companies' total
establishments in own state controlled from
smaller capital cities ................

26. The percentage of each state's Delfin processing
establishments controlled by foreign companies . . . .

27. The percentage of each state's total Delfin
establishments controlled by foreign companies . . . .

28. Location of ultimate control of 910 companies and
government organizations ...............

29. Location of control of $46,000 million assets of
910 major companies and government organizations . . .

30. Control of segments of the Australian work force
in 1966 .......................

31. Location of control of 2,000,000 employees of 910
major companies and government organizations .....

32. The percentage of each state's Delfin processing
establishments controlled from Sydney and
Melbourne together ..................

33. The percentage of each state's total Delfin

establishments controlled from Sydney and
Melbourne together . . . . . .............

xii

Page

132
135

136

140
146
146
152
152
162
182
184
188
189

191

193

197

199

Figure Page
34. Wholesale centers and tributary nodal regions ..... 202

35. Transshipment centers and their tributary nodal
regions ....................... 203

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

 

Prior to federation in 1901 the colonial forerunners of the
present Australian states had functioned for over a hundred years as
separate political colonies of the British Empire. Their economies
were just as provincial as their politics, little unified for the com-
mon good. In the years since the Commonwealth of Australia was founded
in 1901, political union has forged a cohesive nation-state with a
strong federal system of government. Robinson states in his essay,
"Sixty Years of Federation in Australia":

In the relationships between the states collectively and the
Commonwealth, and in the emergence of an Australian "nation,"
we meet the core of the problem. The two are bound up in a
process of constitutional and political change marked by the
increasing centralization of power. For Australia as a whole
this change has been far more significant than the progress
within individual states. Geographically, its influence has
been to override state identity in order to produce uniformity
in the economic, political, and administrative fields. It has
not destroyed state identity, but it has succeeded in relegat-
ing the states to a secondary role; as a corollary, it has
strengthened the centralist tendencies within each state
(Robinson, 1961, 11).

The political and economic foci of the former colonies have become the
six state capitals of today (Figure 1).
Since federation, the states have transferred specific parts

of their political power and decision-making function to Canberra, the

 

TERRITORY

' I

l

l.

w I
: NORTHERN

. I.

!

1

1

1

WESTERN AUSTRALIA i—'—-------- -*-'-'-

 

 

 

 

 

 

is

:0" Perth
w AUSTRALIA
‘3 :00 200 300 0 g
MITES ”MANIA
2. gr m. 4;:
Figure 1. Australian states and capital cities. Canberra

the national capital in the Australian Capital Territory (A.C.T.).

.J"

v-‘I

CI)

no,
5-

In.

 

seat of the Commonwealth Government. The central Government now has
such economically important powers as taxation, external trade, regu-
lation of the basic wage, and immigration. The former colonial capitals
are now the seats of state level political power and serve as the main
centers for Commonwealth branch offices for each state.

In the private sector of the economy, and on a less formal
basis, there has been a centralizing of decision-making and power at
the national level. Historically, top level decision-making and control
of national economic activity has been accruing to both Sydney and Mel-
bourne at the expense of the other state capitals. Such centralization
has been documented by corporate mergers in banking, other finance,
mining, retail trade, and in various divisions of manufacturing
(Bushnell, 1961).

This geographic study seeks answers to two related problems
through the analysis of the spatial concentration of the decision-
making function in central administrative offices of corporations and

1 First, what comparative roles do the

governmental organizations.
major Australian cities have as decision-making centers in producing
regions of national dominance? Conversely, do the state capitals
foster the retention of provincially separate economic regions of less
than nationwide extent? Secondly, does Australia have a centrally
directed economy, or do the former multiple colonial economies remain

essentially spatially autonomous?

 

1Central administrative office is synonymous with head office.
The terms are used interchangeably in this study. Central administra-
tive office is abbreviated as CAO.

A considerable number of Australians still believe their

1 This research attempts

nation does not have a centralized economy.
to clarify the soundness of that notion. It also gives a more precise
measure of the economic role of each capital city. Many people speak
of Melbourne as the "Financial Capital" of Australia. Just how appro-
priate that title is, or whether it more aptly fits Sydney, shall be

investigated.

The Purposes of the Dissertation

This dissertation has two purposes:

1. It will assess and compare the present day roles of the
major Australian cities as economic decision-making centers based upon
the presence of central administrative offices. Australia's capital

cities will be classified and then analyzed within an urban centered

 

lDuring the field work in Australia in 1963-64 various
conversations and discussions with a wide variety of people led to the
conclusion that not all Australians think they have a centralized
economy. For example: Mr. Don Hewitt, Manager of a Perth timber
company, believed Western Australia to be essentially isolated from
the east and must develop on its own efforts. Mr. H. H. Hopkins,
Alderman for Townsville, Queensland, and Chairman of the People the
North Committee, was working for the creation of a separate state
of the north. He felt the State Government in Brisbane was not
working hard enough for development in northern Queensland because
it was too concerned with southern Queensland. An American economist,
Dr. Alex Koezod, was met in Canberra near the end of his six weeks
investigation of Australia. He had tentatively concluded that
Australia still has a colonial style economy focusing on the several
state capitals. These attitudes still prevail among some persons.
In 1973, a prominent Western Australian businessman, Mr. Lang Hancock,
"has urged West Australians to consider seceding from Eastern Australia.
Mr. Hancock said in Perth that Western Australia would be better off
trading with Japan under a favored nation agreement” (Australian
Weekly News, January 18, 1973).

hierarchical system of regions based on the structure and principles

of areal functional organization developed by Philbrick (1957). Econ-
omic nodal regions focusing on these central cities will be delineated
to show the extent and nature of their spatial impact. The decision-
making establishments, to be defined in Chapter II, together with the
corporate and governmental organizations which they control, will be
used to measure and classify cities as decision-making centers. Their
nodal regions will be delimited using the tangible and intangible
linkages which connect the establishments in central cities with branch
units in other cities of lower functional order.

2. The second purpose is to portray the spatial patterns of
the economic structure as a measure of the centralized direction of
the nation's economy. The cities classified as decision-making centers,
together with their nodal regions of national or less than national
extent, are the basis for the spatial patterns of national metropolitan
dominance or continuing provincialism. These purposes and method of

analysis have received limited attention in the geographic literature.

Literature Survey

Smith (1965) and Duncan §t_al. (1960) have criticized some
urban classification systems on the basis that these categorizations
have been made for the sake of classifying, with little further purpose
evident. This present study classifies cities in an urban hierarchy
based upon the presence of CAO's in which top level decision-making
occurs. The cities are nodes in a hierarchy of regions which may

(nrhninate in one national region. The analysis of the cities and

their regions is used to portray the presence or absence of a centrally
directed national economy focusing upon one or more national centers.

Philbrick's system of cities and regions for the United
States infers a relation between nodal regions and national dominance.
However, that study stopped short of a detailed analysis of the higher
order functions. The definitions, measurement, and clarification of
the highest order function of top level decision-making used in this
present study are largely of my own thinking. Gottman (1964) in his
studies of Megalopolis repeatedly expressed the importance and domi-
nance of the cities in Megalopolis as centers of economic decision-
making, finance, power, influence, and mass communications for the
entire United States. But the role of large corporations was not
measured or assessed with any great detail. In a later study, Gottman
(1970) argues for further investigation of the "Quaternary Sector" of
the economy. However, in this article he is more concerned with the
linkages among quaternary establishments and people within cities than
between cities. The Rand McNally Commercial Atlas (1972) has contained
a hierarchy of urban business centers for the United States for a
number of years wherein a unique rating of "4A" is reserved for New
York City and the premier national business center. The considerable
resources of this publishing house have not, as yet, been utilized to
document the linkages of New York and other major cities as national
centers of decision-making.

Starkey (1969) has stressed the regional importance of urban
places and uses Philbrick's map to illustrate the urban hierarchy of

the eastern half of the United States. However, he does not elaborate

on the idea, and thus leaves the synthesis of national cohesiveness
undone. Thoman (1968) refers to a hierarchy of central places in the
United States and the United Kingdom and speaks of a single highest
order financial, administrative, and cultural center for these and
other countries. The documentation of such centers is left undone.

In her wide ranging study of the world's cities, Beaujeu-Garnier (1967)
devotes a chapter to spheres of influence of cities and builds a case
for several levels of cities and differing zones and types of influence
focused thereon. Similarly, Dickinson (1964) and Duncan gt_al, (1960)
have analyzed in some detail the connections between major cities and
large regional hinterlands. Duncan uses correspondent banks and
financial transfers to document linkages, rather than the control of
corporate units from head offices. Borchert (1972) has similarly
examined metropolitan dominance in the United States.

However, it is suggested that geographers have not, as yet,
come to grips with the highest order city or nation-wide regions of
influence dominated by "national” centers. Even the classic study by
Jefferson on Primate Cities (1939) is more concerned with the size of
the city rather than its uniqueness of function and nodality for the
nation. Most central place studies have dwelt upon hierarchies of the
retail function, with higher order centers providing more specialized
retail services to a more widely dispersed and less frequent clientele,
and not through lower order places or establishments. At best they
usually go no higher than the wholesale function. Philbrick's system
and the additions in this study, specifically the CAO's as decision-

making establishments and their associated organizations, add a

different dimension to the basic body of most central place
studies.

The key corporate head office establishments and function
of decision-making used in this study are now receiving some attention
from geographers e.g. Cowan (1969), Morgan (1961), Keuning (1960),
McNee (1960), Ullman (1958). However, the quantity of research is
small considering the very great importance of corporations in and
upon cities, and most particularly their roles as decision-making
centers. The work of Goodwin (1965) on United States management
centers is particularly relevant to this present study. He deals with
a classification of American cities based upon the locations of corpor-
ate head offices. National and regional centers of industrial and
financial importance are determined. Furthermore, he too discussed
the lack of precedence for such research: "In the literature on the
classification of cities, little or no attention has been given to
management per se or to management centers" (Goodwin, 1965, l). A
direct sequel to Goodwin's work was a study of Australia by Johnston
(1966). Location quotients were determined from head office locations,
assets, and factory sites, as compared with metropolitan populations

1 He was not concerned, however, with testing

for the state capitals.
the notion of a centrally directed economy. Nor, did he include the
role of the national and state governments. In an earlier article by

Robinson, already cited above (1961), he concluded that a strong

 

1Johnston's study, as well as this present analysis, show
that for Australia, population of urban centers is not a reliable
indicator of the number or importance of CAO's likely to be found in
a Particular city.

political union had been created. However, he was inclined towards
the idea of state oriented and dominated economies, not yet strongly
unified into a national economy. "These feelings find expression . . .
in the state railway systems, geared to distribute goods in economic
regions largely conterminous with the states themselves . . ." (1961,
l).

Krumme (1969), McNee (1960), and Gottman (1970) all make
cases for more work on the enterprise and its component parts, both
as they are influenced by and have influence upon geographic patterns
of distribution of economic activity. This study of corporate head
offices as indicators of Australia's decision-making centers and
national economic regions is addressed to that need.

A third body of literature that has some relevance to this
research is concerned with the people who own, control, and otherwise
influence the top levels of economic activity. Wheelwright's Anatomy
of Australian Manufacturing Industry_(1967) precisely details 300
Australian manufacturing firms by analyzing who owns and controls this
major sector of the economy. The study was done from an economist's
point of view, being little concerned with the geography of where the
people and the establishments of corporate power were located, except
as to whether they were foreign or domestic. Two other Australian

studies, The Controllers (Rolfe, 1967) and The Sixty Rich Families Who

 

Own Australia (Campbell, 1963) are much more personal and political,
and less company oriented than is Wheelwright's work. They similarly
lack much spatial analysis, although noting that the key decision-

Inaking personnel are concentrated in Australia's capital cities. A

 

 

10

much wider ranging study is Sampson's Anatomy of Britain (1962) which
concerns itself with a dissection of the many component parts of the
British "Establishment." Lundberg's The Rich and the Super-Rich (1968)
is an American counterpart. All of these works have one common thread,
the explicit or implicit assertion that a nation, be it Australia, the
United Kingdom, or the United States, has a small number of highly
influencial decision makers who guide the economic destiny of the
country. Karmel and Brunt (1963) in The Structure of the Australian
Economy sum up this viewpoint:

There is no doubt that there is a very great concentration of

economic power in Australia, although no comprehensive index

can be calculated. We do not know the number of firms in

Australia, let alone their Size (1963, 55).
Secondly, these studies are primarily economic, sociological, or
political in nature, with limited geographical perspective. This
present study examines the geographic concentration and ramifications
of the location of such decision makers in Australia. The persons as
such are not studied. Rather, the establishments in which they work,
the CAO's, are subject to analysis together with the corporate and
governmental organizations which are the embodiment and extension of
the decision-making function.

It is in view of the limited number of studies on the geo-

graphy of decision-making and CAO's and their impact on the pattern

of a nation's economy that has whetted this author's curiosity about

 

Ilt should be noted that that study was published in 1963,
the first year of the four yearly listings of Australia's largest
Cgmpanies done by R. 0. Block, and culminating in the 1967 Delfin
Ebgflggt (Block and Seldon, 1967), the principal source of data for
th1 5 research.

11

the subject. The above mentioned economic and social studies have

further pointed to the need for a complementary geographic analysis.

Method of Analysis

 

It would be an impossible task to determine and to measure
the origin, routes, nodes, frequency, and destinations of all the
decisions that are made in the daily economic routine of a nation such
as Australia. Even to examine a similar geography of only the major
decisions that had widespread economic impact would be nearly as
impossible. It is equally difficult to separate the geographic and
economic importance of political and social decisions of government
bodies. This study does not attempt to perform any of these tasks.
Rather, it substitutes for the actual decisions the head office estab-
lishments in corporate and governmental frameworks wherein decisions
originate. Also included are the intermediate and lower level estab-
lishments through which decisions are disseminated and implemented.
The repeated flow of decisions among establishments within a corpora-
tion result in an institutionalizing of the function. The establish-
ments, as surrogates for the ever changing personnel and the actual
decisions, provide a permanence that is more amenable to geographic
analysis. The intangible inter-establishment linkages of ownership,
and the implied management chains-of—command and communications can be
used to evaluate a network of interconnected cities and regions.

When large numbers of significant decision-making and
management establishments become concentrated in a city through time,

that: city may be categorized as a decision-making center. The

12

surrounding area which is linked by these establishments and function
to the central city becomes its nodal region. The patterns of such
nodal regions may encompass all, or only part, of a given nation. If
it can be shown cartographically that one or more centers are the
nodes for nationwide regions of the decision-making function, then it
seems a logical conclusion that there exists a centralized economic
structure, focused upon and directed and coordinated from one or more
national centers. However, if it is shown that no decision-making
center or region is of a nationwide importance or extent, but instead
there are several centers and regions of approximately statewide
extent, then it is fair to conclude that Australia's economy is still
provincial in character. A centralized economic structure would be
the complement of the existing strong political structure which has
evolved since 1901 and which is centrally dominated from Canberra.

Three hypotheses are to be examined.

1. It is hypothesized that the urban functional hierarchy
of Australian cities culminates in a decision-making
center, or centers, having nationwide economic dominance
through the concentration of central administrative
offices.

The center, or centers, are to be determined by the number and quality
of corporate and governmental head offices present in each city.
Philbrick's areal functional organization suggests that only one
center will emerge. There appears the possibility that more than one

national city may exist in Australia (Johnston, 1966, 52). The other

l3

possibility is for no truly national center, only cities of less than
national importance existing.

To measure the importance of decision-making centers, data
on some 900 of the largest private corporations and government statu-
tory authorities are used. The head office establishments of these
enterprises are enumerated for each city. The assets controlled by
these head offices are similarly totaled. Numbers of employees, which
are available for about four-fifths of the 900 companies, are a third
measure. Assets and employees give weighted importance to the number
of companies. The analysis in the following chapters will show that a
composite exposition of all three measures provides a clearer under-
standing of the decision-making or central administrative function than
any one measure by itself.

The 900 companies represent a broad cross section of
Australian industrial, financial, and commercial life. They include
domestic, foreign, private, government, local, and nationally operating
firms. In addition, Commonwealth and State Government departments and
agencies are included because many have important economic roles.
Their inclusion will give proper credit to the growing importance of
Canberra, not only as the seat of political power, but because of its
role in economic decision—making.

2. It is hypothesized that Australian capital cities are

the nodal points of a hierarchy of functional regions
culminating in a nationwide economic region coextensive

with the national political boundaries.

14

The spatial distribution of the establishments of the 900 firms, and
the locations of government employees, are used to measure the extent
of areal impact and, thus, the nodal regions of the decision-making
centers. The firms are classified as: those operating nationally;
ones which operate in only four, three, or two states; and those
operating in only one state or locally. The number of companies in
these areal groupings are enumerated for each city. Assets of these
various areal groupings of companies are determined.

Commonwealth Government departments and agencies are not all
headquartered in Canberra. Not all of them operate nationally, nor
are all of equal economic importance. Their location and areal impact
will be mapped and evaluated through the location of federal employees.
The state level of government will similarly be measured.

3. It is hypothesized from the concentration of head offices
and their spatial impact that Australia has a centrally
directed national economy.

This is to be assessed from the spatial patterns of nodal regions
resulting from the centralization of CAO's and the decision-making
function in national versus less than national centers.

In summary, the analysis includes the following:

1. Define and measure the role of Australian cities as
decision-making centers based upon the presence of head office estab-
lishments exercising this function.

2. Determine and map the functional nodal regions of each

CIEY'IJased upon the spatial distribution of company establishments and

15

government employees as indicators of the institutionalized linkages
of the decision-making function.

3. Compare and contrast the cities and their associated
regions of influence to show the relative strength of each.

4. Use the analysis of the cities and their regions to
evaluate whether or not Australia has a centralized or fragmented
economy. This evaluation is based upon whether nationwide regions and
national centers are found to exist versus only areas and cities of

less than national extent and impact being determined.

Dissertation Outline

 

The geographic analysis of Australian decision-making
centers and their contributions to a centralized economy is organized
into nine chapters. This introduction is followed by a chapter con-
taining definitions of terms and the sources, uses, and interpretations
of data and terms. Summary data on companies and an introduction to
some of Australia's largest business enterprises are included.
Chapters III and IV, respectively, analyze central administrative
offices and the decision-making function present in Sydney and Melbourne.
A number of comparisons of these two cities are made. Nodal regions
are established for the two cities. Chapter V examines Canberra's
role as the center for governmental economic decision-making and the
spatial impact thereof. Australia's other four state capitals,
Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart, are measured and assessed in
Cpahter VI. The minor presence of head offices in other cities and

towns is also examined. The portion of economic control assignable

16

to foreign companies is documented in Chapter VII. In the next chapter
overall comparisons of Australia's capital cities are drawn and the
hypothesis of a centralized economy is examined. Conclusions, postula-

tions, and applications of the study are made in Chapter IX.

 

an

I.‘

.hb

ll.-
.. l
'1

hi.

I)

 

 

CHAPTER II

DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT DATA

Definitions

 

A decision-making center is a city wherein numerous major
decisions are being continuously made. They are made at the very top
levels of administration and have national or wide regional impact.
The caliber of these decisions is such that they affect major indust-
ries, work forces, large segments of production and consumption, and
significant portions of a nation's population. The nature, importance,
and repetitive patterns of these top level decisions result in highly
organized frameworks which have been developed for their creation,
communication, and implementation. Such frameworks are given substance
and continuity in the form of corporations, often with nationwide
operations. Other frameworks appear as government organizations. Top
level decision-makers have given physical presence and permanence to
their function at the apex of corporate frameworks by erecting head
office buildings in which to carry on the process.

This study is concerned with decisions having an economic
l'mPOr‘tance, rather than those of a social or political nature. It is
concerned with decisions made at the highest levels, not with the

mundane variety. For example, the decision of the Broken Hill Propriet-

ary Company to diversify into offshore oil exploration is the magnitude

17

18

of decisions of concern in determining decision-making centers. Not
of concern is the individual consumer deciding to buy or not to buy
some commodity. Various aspects of the decision-making function are:
corporate policies, operational decisions, future planning, capital
investments, employment, and corporate goals. Decision-making is policy
formulation and differs from management, which is concerned with execu-
tion of those policies. However, as mentioned in Chapter I, the actual
decisions would be impossible to analyze in the aggregate. Much more
amenable to geographic analysis are the establishments in which such
decisions are made, namely, the central administrative offices of com-
panies and government organizations. This study uses these head
office establishments together with their associated organizational
frameworks through which decisions are implemented as the means to
classify cities as decision-making centers.

For this study an economic decision-making center such as
Sydney is defined as a city which has a large proportion of the head
offices of a nation's major companies and/or central offices of govern-
ment departments and agencies that have major economic importance.1
An absolute number of such head offices can not be given for the
definition because it would depend on the total number of companies
surveyed. These centers are further defined by having a functional
nodal region beyond the metropolitan area linked to it by the decision-

making function through multi-establishment organizations directed

 

1A decision-making center is a city identified by the con-
centration of the policy formulation function as contrasted to a lower
order nmnagement center characterized by the policy execution function.

D

o’er

«F.

O I

II!

F

0":

u
l
5‘

n.
on-
! I

19

from CAO's. A basic principle of areal functional organization is
that the establishments and focal places of one hierarchical level
have linkages to establishments in other places of lower functional
order (Philbrick, 1957, 336).

Of importance to the measurement of the decision-making
function as expressed by CAO's is the interpretation of what is meant
by the "top level" of decision-making. This research employs three
different interpretations in various parts of the analysis so that the
reader may see the effect such interpretations have on the relative
strengths of the decision-making function in various cities. The
location of top level decision-making and control of assets are inter-
preted in three different ways with varying degrees of strictness in
defining what is ultimate control. The three ways are:

l. Strict Interpretation. A city's decision-making

 

importance is measured by its head office control of
private domestic and State Government assets only.

The very top level of decision-making for the Federal
Government and ultimate control of federal assets are
deemed to be made and held by Parliament and the
ministers. Thus, all importance of Federal Government
decision-making is assigned to Canberra, even though
the head offices of some departments and semi-autonomous
statutory authorities are located elsewhere. Ultimate
control of all foreign companies and their assets is
assigned to the overseas central administrative offices

of the parent firm. The assets and decision-making are

20.

not counted with Australian city totals, even though
their management offices for Australian operations are in
Sydney, Melbourne, or other Australian cities.

2. Moderate Interpretation. Federal Government top level
decision-making and control of assets are deemed to be
located at head offices of departments and semi-
autonomous authorities rather than made and controlled
by Parliament in Canberra. The decision-making importance
of a city includes, and is thus measured by, its head
office control of private domestic, State, and Federal
Government assets. Control of foreign assets remains
overseas as in a Strict Interpretation.

3. Broad Interpretation. The measurement of a city's top

 

level decision—making and assets control under this
interpretation places these functions in the head
offices of private domestic, State, and Federal enter-
prises and departments. Added to these CAO's are the
Australian management offices of foreign companies in

that city.

Data Sources

This study concerns only the continent of Australia and its
island state of Tasmania. It does not include any overseas territories
or Papua-New Guinea. It is concerned with the stage of economic
development in the middle 1960's based upon field work in 1963-1964 and
subsequent materials that pertain to 1963-1967. It will not concern

itself with any historical detail and, thus, past trends.

21

Field work included the collection and study of data on
Australia's economic structure at all levels and the establishments
and linkages which make up the tangible evidences of that structure.1
Annual reports and informational brochures of companies and government
agencies provide a wealth of detail on individual corporate and govern-
mental decisional frameworks. Government documents and statistical

reports provide aggregate summaries of economic activity. Newspapers,

especially the Australian Financial Review, are invaluable sources of

 

data on company activities and establishments, be they head offices,
factories, or branch outlets. Company and government maps portray some
of the geography of enterprises for Australia. Numerous conversations
and interviews were held with a broad spectrum of people both in pri-
vate business and in government positions. These ranged from corporate
presidents and top government administrators through middle management,
to local wholesalers, retailers, and transport workers. Observations
and notes were made of the tangible, visible evidences of corporate

and governmental organizations and their imputed linkages to central

offices.2

 

1The field work was conducted from January, 1963 to June,
1964. It included a trip by car and airplane of some 30,000 miles
around the perimeter and into the heart of the continent, including
a short time in Tasmania. Data was gathered in all six state capitals,
in Canberra, in many of the smaller cities and towns, and at mines
and ranches.

2From these experiences, conversations, notes, and data,
this author has constructed an interpretation of the nodal centers
and regions of Australia's lower functional orders, below that of the
decision-making function. That work is beyond the purpose of this
Present study but provides the underlying hierarchy of lower order
Centers and regions.

22

For the function of top level decision-making, tables of
companies grouped by the locations of head offices and by areal extent
of operations have been constructed from data in the 1967 Delfin
.Qigg§t_(Block and Seldon, 1967).1 The tables show numbers of company
head offices, assets, number of employees, and distribution of estab-
lishments for some 900 enterprises. The firms listed in the Delfin
.Qige§t_include almost all of Australia's big business, whether private,
government, domestic, or foreign. However, it is a data source pub-
lished for the financial community by the Development Finance Corpora-
tion, one of Australia's leading investment banking houses. The data
needed considerable reworking before they could be utilized for a
geographical analysis of the location of control and decision-making
for companies, assets, employees, and establishments.

Supplementing the Digg§t_data is information from the
Universal Business Directories, company annual reports, Australian
telephone directories, The Business Who's Who of Australia, 1970-1971,

and the excellent economic studies by Wheelwright, Rolfe, and Karmel

 

1Before this author had the opportunity to summarize the
data collected on individual companies much of the work was done in a
series of publications edited by R. 0. Block of the Development Finance
Corporation. It was published in various formats. The first, in 1963,
was a series of tables and articles in the Australian Financial Review
reprinted as the Australian Financial Review's Directory of the Top 800
Australian Com anies. In 1964, The Australian publiShed A Directory of
gtfie Top |,OOO Companies, Australia and’N. Z. The Development Finance
Corporation pUblished the first Delfin Digest in 1965 and a new edition
in 1967 providing details on some 900 Australian companies for fiscal
.Year 1966. No subsequent directory of such comprehensive nature has
hie: published to date, hence the reliance on mid 1960 data for this
suy.

 

 

The Development Finance Corporation provided through these
various publications a record of the Australian business comnunity
comparable in many respects to the Fortune Oi rectory published in the
Uni ted States.

23

and Brunt mentioned earlier. However, the year and a half spent in
Australia enhanced this author's understanding of the geographic organi-
zation of the Australian economy that could not be gained from published

materials alone.

Measurement Data

 

Australia's decision-making centers are identified on the

basis of the 1967 Delfin Digest lists of 907 of the nation's largest

 

companies. These will henceforth be referred to as the "Delfin Compan-
ies." (That nomenclature should not be construed to mean the firms are
subsidiaries of the Development Finance Corporation.) The ngg§t_pro-
vides raw data for three measures which are used to classify and com-
pare major Australian cities. The measures are:

l. The number and location of central administrative

offices.

2. Company assets (in 1966 Australian dollars).1

3. The number of employees (disclosed for 85 per cent of

the listed companies).

In addition to the forty-five semi-autonomous government
statutory authorities included in the Delfin tables, such as the Common-
wealth Banking Corporation and the various state railways, the location
and economic importance of Commonwealth and State Government departments
and other selected agencies, are analyzed for their contribution to

each city's role as a decision-making center. Of special note in this

 

1Currency conversion rate in 1966: A$l.00 = US$1.12.

24

latter group are the Postmaster-General's Department and the Reserve
Bank of Australia. Various interpretations of the location of top
level decision-making will show that Canberra is not the only city to
benefit from Commonwealth head offices.

Decisions made in head offices are implemented through com-
plex corporate and governmental management structures. Nodal regions
are created when linkages develop between spatially diffused places
and some central point. When decisions are made in CAO's and then
pass down through management structures and establishments, they create
a beaded form of linkage that holds a great corporation together. All
the establishments of one company are linked directly or through inter-
mediate units to the central office by control and ownership. The
spatial pattern of these units constitutes the nodal region for that
company. Taken in aggregate, the separate regions for many companies
with head offices in one city make up the nodal region for decision-
making centered there.

Unfortunately for this spatial analysis, the distribution
of assets and employment by states or otherwise, are not available in
the ngg§t_or elsewhere. However, it does have information on estab-
lishments by state for individual companies. Federal employment is
also available by state. Since this analysis seeks to measure metro-
politan dominance nationally versus something less than nationally,
the data aggregated at the state level are sufficient for this analysis.
Delfin data and other information on the locations of the companies'
various branch offices and processing and distribution establishments

are used to show the spatial impact of the decision-making function

25

emanating from each city. The nodal regions for this function are
measured by:
1. The number of Delfin companies with head offices in
each city which operate nationally; or, regionally
in two to four states; or, only within one state
and/or locally.
2. The number of processing establishments in each
state controlled from each city by Delfin firms.
3. The total establishments of the Delfin companies
located in each state controlled from each city.
Included in the term "total establishments" are
the above mentioned processing units plus all
distribution and branch office establishments.
For Canberra, Delfin companies and establishments are too few to meas-
ure its spatial importance which is largely expressed through Federal
departments and agencies, so that the measurement criteria used is:

4. Federal civilian employees located in each state.

Introduction to Aggregate Data

 

The following tables summarize and illustrate the types of

useful data from the Delfin Digest that are employed in this study.

 

The information pertains to all 907 companies including those head-
quartered in non-capital cities and towns. Some companies and small
sub-groups in the original source have been reclassified or combined
into different categories resulting in the thirty-six industry groups

in Table l. The manufacturing sector has twenty industry groups

26

Table 1. Industry groups: number of companies, assets, and employees by group.

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I d G # Assets Employees
n ustry roups .
c° 5 SM 9; r 1

Primary Iron & Steel 7 1,073 2.6 62,981 4.8
Primary Non-Ferrous Metals 13 820 2.0 27,213 2.1
Farm, Construction, & Other Equipment 14 153 .4 7,897 .6
Motor Vehicle Assembly 9 698 1.7 47,192 3.6
Other Transportation Equip 26 285 .7 36,875 2.8
Heavy General Engineering 15 150 V4 14,049 1.1
Metal Bldg Supplies & Equip 20 202 .5 21,204 1.6
Electric Mach, Equip, 8 Supplies 39 597 1.4 63,326 4.8
Other Fabricated Metal Products 41 441 1.1 42,855 3.2
Building Materials 46 628 1.5 41,263 3.1
MANUFACTURING - DURABLE GOODS 230 5,047 12.2 364,855 27.6
Petroleum Refining & Marketing 13 1,554 3.8 28,034 2.1
Industrial Chemicals 21 623 1.5 21,923 1.7
Other Chems, Fert, Pharmc, Soap 35 347 .8 ' 20,076 1.5
Rubber 8 Plastic Products 9 293 .7 27,944 2.1
Food & Drink 82 1,280 3.1 82,535 6.2
Alcoholics, Tobacco, Malt 18 598 1.4 21,304 1.6
Textile Mills 8 Apparel Prods. 38 446 1.1 48,225 3.6
Pulp, Paper, Newspapers 29 600 1.5 39,316 3.0
Packaging 14 357 .9 30,690 2.3
Misc. Products 11 118 .3 10,265 .8
MANUFACTURING - NON-DURABLE GOODS 270 6,215 15.1 330,312 25.0
TOTAL ALL MANUFACTURING SECTOR 500 11,262 27.3 695,167 52.6
Mining 1 25 732 1.8 20,810 1.6
Agricultural and Pastora

Production and Distribution 14 295 '7 23’033 1'7
Wool Selling Brokers 8 Agents 16 606 1.5 18,795 1.4
Building & Construction 25 312 .8 25,812 2.0
Banks, Trading & Saving 15 13,675 33.1 74,241 5.6
Investment Banks, Money Market 10 477 1.2 516 -
Other Finance 35 1,828 4.4 6,845 .5
Insurance, Life & Non-Life 47 4,498 10.9 32,780 2.5
Railways, Government 7 1,844 4.5 126,678 9.6
Other Transportation 23 665 1.6 56,654 4.3
Utilities, Elec, Gas 8 Comm. 20 2,764 6.7 62,067 4.7
Retail Trade 50 1,092 2.6 118,692 9.0
Vehicle Distribution 25 191 .5 15,066 1.1
Wholesale Distribution 50 504 1.2 31,973 2.4
Other Goods & Services 25 228 .6 9,456 .7
Investment & Holding Co's. 20 290 .7 3,080 .2
PRIMARY - TERTIARY SECTOR 470 30,001 72.7 626,498 47.4
TOTAL ALL DELFIN COMPANIES 907 41,263 100.0 - 1,321,665 100.0

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

27

equally divided between durable and non-durable goods. The combined
primary-tertiary sector is composed of three primary groups and thir-
teen from the tertiary sector.1 The number of firms in each group
varies from a high of eighty-two in food and drink processing to a low
of seven for both the primary iron and steel group and the government
railways category. These three groups demonstrate the need to use more
than one measurement criteria such as number of companies or assets as
the only measure of a city's importance. The $1,000 million2 assets
of the seven primary iron and steel companies compare very favorably
with the $1,280 million assets of the far more numerous companies in
the food and drink group. Similarly, the $1,800 million of just the
seven government railways are half again as much as those of the eighty-
two food and drink companies. 0n the other hand, the group comprised
of the fifteen trading and savings banks dominates all others with
$13,700 million which is one-third of all Delfin assets.

The number of employees disclosed by 771 of the Delfin com-

panies is 1,300,000. Two groups have over 100,000 each or about

 

1The primary sector includes the industry groups of mining;
agricultural and pastoral production and distribution; and wool selling
brokers and agents. These three are combined with the thirteen groups
of the tertiary sector because of the considerable activities of the
mining, agricultural, and wool broker companies in finance, investments,
transportation, wholesaling, retail and/or other tertiary activities.
The Combination facilitates discussion in later chapters.

2This form of expressing money is necessary because the term
"billion" has different meanings in Australia and the United States.
In Australia a billion equals one million million, after the British
format. In the U. S. a billion is only one thousand million, which
is derived from French usage. Thus, the expression $1,000 million
equals $1 billion in American terminology.

28

9 per cent of the total disclosed. They are the seven government
railways and the fifty firms in retail trade. About half of the Delfin
employees are in manufacturing and the other half are in primary-
tertiary industries. Compared with this, assets are only about one
quarter and three quarters in these respective sectors. The 907 firms
together represent approximately 27 per cent of the overall Australian

work force of 4,800,000 (Yearbook of Australia, Australia Commonwealth

 

Bureau of Census and Statistics, 1968, 1151). No total is available
for assets of all Australian companies so a similar comparison cannot
be made with the Delfin list assets.

In a spatial context, about one-half of the Delfin companies
operate nationally; that is, they have one or more establishments in
all six states. Another quarter operate only within a single state or

locally (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of Delfin companies Operating in number of states.

 

 

 

 

Location of Number of Percentage

Establishments Companies of Companies
National 415 46%
in 5 States 22 3%
in 4 States 57 6%
in 3 States 75 8%
in 2 States 111 12%

in 1 State

or Local 227 25%
Total 907 100%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

29

The total of all processing and other establishments

represented by the Delfin Digest sample of Australian firms is over

 

23,000. They are distributed by states as follows:

Table 3. Number of total establishments of Delfin companies in each

 

 

 

 

state.
. Distribution
State Total Proce551ng and Offices

New South Wales 7,879 1,539 6,340
Victoria 6,280 1,268 5,012
South Australia 2,646 433 2,213
Queensland 3,252 551 2,701
Western Australia 1,963 327 1,636
Tasmania 975 167 808
Northern Territory 134 29 105
A.C.T. 285 37 248

Total 23,414 4,351 19,063

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

The fourth measure, federal employees controlled ultimately
from Canberra, concerns 278,000 civilian employees but excludes 121,000
military. The latter's distribution by state is not available. How-
ever, each branch of the military does maintain bases and personnel in
every state and territory. For comparisons with the federal civilian
employees, a half-million state employees are included in the chapter

on comparisons of the various cities.

30

It can be seen from these introductory listings and the totals

that the Delfin Digest is an extensive reference that includes a major

 

segment of Australia's economic community. The spatial ramifications
of the companies warrant geographic analysis. It is this top segment
of companies that is most likely to create a nationwide economic
decision-making structure if, in fact, one has evolved since federa-
tion. In this study the very largest Australian enterprises, measured
by assets and/or number of employees, are included as well as many
medium and even relatively small firms, viz., those having as little

as $2 — 4 million in assets.

The TOP 128 Delfin Companies Ranked by Assets1

The TOP 128 largest Delfin companies, those having $50 million
or more in assets, are listed and ranked in Table 4. Although they
constitute only 14 per cent of the Delfin firms, they control almost
80 per cent of those assets, $32,000 million in total. Near the very
top of this list are the corporate and governmental financial giants

of the Australian business world.

1These largest companies are collectively identified as the
"TOP 128" and will be referred to by that nomenclature for ease of
identification throughout the dissertation. Most of these enterprises
are well known to Australians and to many foreign businessmen. The
1967 Delfin Digest does not rank the companies by assets. Rather, it
Places them alphabetically into industry groups. It does rank the
top 200 by shareholders' funds. Earlier editions ranked the companies
in various industry groups by shareholders' funds also. The TOP 128
companies are listed here for individual comparisons and for later
reference. The figure of 128 is arrived at by the arbitrary decision
of including those companies having $50 million in assets. This figure
includes most of Australia's well known larger firms.

 

3'1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. TOP 128 Delfin companies by assets rank.

Assets Industry HQ Govt Foreign
c°mp‘"y s m. Group City S.A. Control
First Echelon > $300 m.

1. Commonwealth Banking Corp. 3.698 Banking 5 Comm
2. Bank of New South Wales 2.640 Banking 5
3. Aust. B New Zealand Bank 1,874 Banking M UK
4. Aust. Mutual Provident Soc. 1.315 Insurance S
5. Nat'l. Bank of Australasia 1,157 Banking M
6. State Savings Bank Victoria 973 Banking M Vict
7. State Electricity Comm. Vic. 878 Utility M Vict
8. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. 870 Prmy Iron M
9. Comel Banking Co. of Sydney 835 Banking S
10. Commercial Bank of Australia 778 Banking M
11. NSW Dept. of Railways 716 Railways S NSW
12. English Scottish & Aust Bank 604 Banking M UK
13. Electricity Comm. of NSH 565 Utility 5 NSW
14. Mutual Life and Citizens
Assurance Co. 553 Insurance 5
15. Victorian Railways 424 Railways M Vict
16. Aust. Temperance a General
Mutual Life Assurance Soc 422 Insurance H
17. National Mutual Life
Association of Australasia 412 Insurance N
18. SavingsIBank of South Aust. 371 Banking A SA
9. Co onia Mutua Li e
Assurance Society 368 Insurance M
20. I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd. 364 Indl Chem M UK
21. Shell Australian Securities 313 Petr Ref M UK
22. Rural Bank of NSW 309 Banking S NSW
23. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. 303 Food S
First Echelon Sub-Total 20,741 S 9
M 13
A 1
Second Echelon 3100-299 m.
24. Conzinc Riotinto of Aust. 299 Mining M UK
25. Hydro-Electric Comm. Tasm. 290 Utility H Tasm
26. General Motors-Holden's 268 Motor Veh M US
27. Australian Guarantee Corp. 267 Other Fin S
28. Queensland Dept of Railways 252 Railways 8 Old
29. Electricity Trust of So Aust 247 Utility A SA
30. I.A.C. (Holdings) 229 Other Fin S
31. British Petroleum Co of Aust 207 Petr Ref M UK
32. Dalgety & New Zealand Loan 200 Woolbrkr S UK
33. W. Aust. Gov. Railways 191 Railways P WA
34. Ampol Petroleum 184 Petr Ref S
35. Woolworths 182 Retail S
36. Govt Insurance Office of NSW 178 Insurance S NSH
37. Mount Isa Mines 175 Prmy NoFe 8 US
38. Mobil Oil Australia 174 Petr Ref M US
39. British Tobacco Co (Aust) 174 Tobacco S UK
40. City Mutual Life Assurance 173 Insurance S
41. So Electric Auth. of Old. 167 Utility B Old
42. Myer Emporium 167 Retail M
43. Qantas Empire Airways 163 Transport S Comm
44. Australian Consolidated Ind 162 Packaging M
45. Prudential Assurance Co. 161 Insurance S UK
46. Custom Credit Corp. 161 Other Fin S
47. Ford Motor Co of Australia 156 Motor Veh M US
48. Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort 153 Woolbrkr A
49. South Australian Railway 152 Railways A SA
50. General Motors Acceptance
Corporation (Australia) 146 Other F1" M US
51. C.J. Coles 8 Co. 146 Retail M
52. State Govt Insurance Offices 143 Insurance B Old
53. Australian Paper Mfgrs 133 Pulp Paper M
54. Comcl A General Acceptance 131 Other Fin S
55. Bank of Adelaide 130 Banking A
56. Sydney County Council 126 Utility S de
57. Alcoa of Australia 125 Pmry NoFe M US
58. Ansett Transport Industries 120 Transport M
59. H. C. Sleigh 115 Petr Dist M
60. Comalco Industries 114 Pmry NoFe M US
2;. State Bank of South Aust. 114 Banking A SA
. Rura a Industries Bank of
Western Australia 109 Banking S
63. Boral Ltd. 109 Petr Ref 5
64. Gas a Fuel Corp. of Victoria 198 Utility M Vict
65. State Electricity Comm. WA 107 Utility P WA

32

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Continued.
Assets Industry HQ Govt Foreign
Company S m. Group City S.A. Control
66. Dunlop Rubber Australia 106 Rubber M
67. Australian Oil Refining 105 Petr Ref 5 US
68. Carlton 6 United Breweries 104 Beer M
69. Queensland Alumina 104 Pmry NoFe Glad US
70. ESANOA 103 Other Fin M UK
Second Echelon Sub-Total 7,629
I & II Echelons Cumulative 28,370
Third Echelon $50-99 m.
71. Metal Manufacturers 99.0 Prmy NoFe 5 UK
72. Caltex Oil (Australia) 98.5 Petr Ref S US
73. Choiseul Plantations (Hold.) 98.2 Agri Prod S
74. A.P.A. Holdings 95.3 Investm S
75. John Lysaght (Australia) 91.9 Prmy Iron 5 UK
76. Australian United Corp. 90.6 Inv Bankg M
77. South British Insurance Co. 88.6 Insurance NZ NZ
78. David Jones 88.0 Retail 5
79. Commonwealth Railways 87.2 Railways M Comm
80. Capel Court Securities 87.0 Money Mkt M
81. Australian Gas Light Co. 86.6 Utility S
82. E550 Standard Oil (Aust.) 85.8 Petr Ref S US
83. Tubemakers of Australia 83.6 Prmy Iron S UK
84. Finance Corp of Australia 82.2 Other Fin A
85. Associated Securities 78.2 Other Fin S
86. Tooth & Co. 77.1 Beer S
87. General Credits Holdings 76.4 Other Fin M
88. Chrysler Australia 76.1 Motor Veh A US
89. Consolidated Goldfields Aust 75.7 Mining S UK
90. Felt B Textiles of Aust 73.5 Textiles M
91. Unilever Australia (Holdings) 68.5 Other Chem S UK
92. Repco 68.3 Trans Equi M
93. Amoco Australia 68.3 Petr Ref 5 US
94. Mercantile Credits 67.6 Other Fin S HK
95. E.Z. Industries 66.2 Prmy NoFe M
96. H. R. Carpenter Holdings 66.1 Agri Prod S
97. Electronic Industries 65.2 Elec Mach M Neth
98. Australian National Airlines 65.2 Transport M Comm
99. North Broken Hill 64.6 Mining M
100. Int'l. Harvester Co. of Aust. 62.8 Motor Veh M US
101. Olympic Consolidated Ind. 62.1 Rubber M
102. Lombard Australia 61.8 Other Fin 5 UK
103. New Zealand Insurance Co. 60.8 Insurance NZ N2
104. Broken Hill South 60.3 Mining M
105. McPhersons 59.2 Fabr Metal M
106. John Fairfax 58.7 Paper NP S
107. Haltons 57.8 Retail S
108. Australian Estates Co. 57.6 Woolbrkr M UK
109. Aust Coastal Shipping Comm. 56.8 Transport M Comm
110. Goodyear Tyre 3 Rubber (Aust) 56.7 Rubber S US
111. George Weston Foods 56.5 Food S UK
112. Mutual Acceptance C0. 55.4 Other Fin S UK
:12. L.J. Hooker Investment Corp 55.3 Bldg Const S
. Commercial Union Assurance Co.
of Australia 54.7 Insurance M UK
115. New Broken Hill Consolidated 54.5 Mining M UK
116. Associated Pulp & Paper Mills 54.3 Pulp Paper M
117. British Motor Corp (Aust.) 54.2 Motor Veh S UK
118. Broken Hill Assoc. Smelters 53.4 Prmy NoFe M UK
119. Grace Bros. Holdings 53.1 Retail S
120. Development Finance Corp. 52.3 Inv Bankg S
131. Alliance Holdings 50.9 Other Fin S
122. Lend Lease Corp. 50.8 Bldg Const S
723- Petroleum Refineries (Aust) 50.3 Petr Ref M US
124. Clyde industries 50.2 Fabr Metal s
125. Blue Metal Industries 50.2 Bldg Mtrl s
{25— ‘Trans City 50.1 Money Mkt S
’27. Commonwealth Industrial Gases 50.1 Indl Chem 5 UK
28. Humes 50.0 Bldg. Mtrl M
1

Third Echelon Sub-Total

3’92

 

I. II a. III Echelons Cumulative

32.291

 

33

The TOP 128 are divided into three Echelons1 based on ranges
of assets. There are an additional two Echelons for companies having
smaller assets. These five ranks and their range of assets are:

First Echelon: $300 million and greater.
(The largest enterprise has $3,700 million)

Second Echelon: $100 million to $299 million.
Third Echelon: $ 50 million to $ 99 million.
Fourth Echelon: $ 30 million to $ 49 million.

Fifth Echelon: Less than $30 million in assets.
(The smallest firm has $1.9 million)

In the First Echelon is a mere handful of twenty-three com-
panies. These giants give distinction to this exclusive Echelon because
they collectively control over one-half of the total Delfin assets,
or more than all the 884 other companies combined!

Locations of the head offices of the TOP 128 firms give some
introductory clues about the relative importance of Australia's
capital cities (Table 5). Sydney and Melbourne are nearly equal in
numbers of companies, and overshadow all other state capitals (Table 5,
Part A). Only one head office is in a non—capital Australian city,
and it is foreign controlled. Two others, both New Zealand insurance
firms, operate through branch offices controlled directly from Auckland.
Canberra does not have a single headquarters, government or private,

among the Delfin TOP 128.

 

1The term "Echelon" is used to distinguish companies grouped
by assets size from other categorizations such as industrial groups or
employment size groups.

I! III III:

{FIYII -

(1p CS.

‘lq-rl§\) J

r Wail \ uernu~neav

1

§

\

:JDE

\ §4IA§ .5:

al‘RU N

- senee~s\ ~ 21

1“ a\la\

34

 

.emomeo eeepoo Nem_ ease eopeeeou

"wussom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mow owe mew mmo._ me.P mme.op mmo.om moN.F¢ muomm< .mmwceasou mom
Nme pa opm mpm ome . eom.~ meflm emp.n Eomm cusp mmmp >
PA ed mm . mop moo mum mmm.F Emu» on gem» >H
mmm omm Noe Am mum.w moo.mr moo.mw FmN.Nm mNP mop .Ezu
mep+ - - - amp owe.~ + mm_ N + _Nm m + Ema” me some HHH
eo_ omN Noe Ame NoF.F mmP.NF NN¢.mF Fum.wm soop sm>o .szo
eop omm Noe emu can + mmu N + New m + mmo N + gamma o» Eco,» HH
- l l l Fem Ame.m «mm.op Pen.o~ «cos so .5 com» H
Aooo.wv copmcom mummm< xa xpwu comm Ease emPpoepcou mmwcemsou :weFmo mom Co mpmmmq .u km<a
. r l . mom on.m oom.w mmm.e_ .ou owummeoo mue>wsa
- cam. new- mom- emw l Nmm.~ l mmnum l Poe ops emppoeucoo newscsm>ou
. omm Noe mom mem._ Noe.w mmm.m_ mmm.e~ cmFFospcou owpmmsoo
mmN- - - me_- we - ee_.m - ePN._ - mom.“ - eo_Foeoeou coveted
mmm omm Noe mmm mmm.~ moo.mp www.mp me.mm mummm< umcwaeou Peach
300.3 5.5 comm E 832333: 82328 may Moe Co 3.33 .m ES.
loll .oll .oll .oll .ml new: blml mm .8 65858 3932a
- F- m- m- e- A l A . mm 1 coppoepcoo pcmsccm>ow
.pl IFI .mll .mll mil .mlml. lull em 32328 05.8an
m- - - P- _- om- mp- ee - eo__oeoeou gametes
m _ m e m mm mm mm_ noeeeaeou Lo songsz
xuwu goem cw wooeeeo new: manuscu mmp may we L3:52 .< em<a

segue “Leno: spew; mcmnmwsm muwepmv< mcesonpmz xmcuam Peach
.mm_:maeoo cwepmo mmp moh.eo xgm553m .m mpaoh

35

If the forty-four foreign controlled firms are subtracted
and all federal and state enterprises are also removed so that just
private domestic firms remain, Sydney and Melbourne reign supreme in
the private sector. Sydney has thirty head offices, Melbourne has
twenty-six, and Adelaide three; there are none elsewhere.

In terms of assets, these two cities also dominate the TOP
128 list, again very roughly as equals (Table 5, Part 8). 5A further
introductory clue is added to the geographic analysis and interpreta-
tions of the relative importance of these two cities if one subtracts
foreign controlled from total assets. Sydney is clearly dominant with
$14,000 million in domestic assets compared to Melbourne's $8,500
million.

Part C of Table 5 summarizes all 907 Delfin firms in the
five assets Echelons. Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart do not have any
head offices in the First and Third Echelons. Their representatives
in the Second and Fourth are almost exclusively through state owned
railroads, utilities, and banks. In contrast, Sydney is broadly repre—
sented, having more assets than all other cities combined in the First,
Third, and Fourth levels. The totals of all assets for the full com-
plement of companies will be examined in more detail in succeeding

chapters.

Delfin Major Employers

 

The Delfin companies have a wide range in their numbers of
employees. Broken Hill Proprietary and the NSW Government Railways

top the list with work forces of 48,000 and 46,000 respectively. The

36

smallest number of employees listed in the Qig§§t_is for Argo
Investments with two, followed by another investment firm, Cuming Smith
and Company, which has three. The_Qige§t does not rank the companies

by size of work forces. This study ranks those having disclosed employ-
ment of 4,000 or more and will refer to these firms as "Major Employers"
throughout the dissertation (Table 6).1 This table includes only about
half of the companies from the TOP 128 list. Large assets do not
necessarily correlate with large employment. The presence of six

Fourth Echelon firms, plus three from the Fifth Echelon, is noted. On
the other hand, six of the First Echelon companies do not qualify as
Major Employers although four of them are close with 3,000 or more
employees.

Melbourne is headquarters for about half of these companies
and just over half the employees on this list. Sydney has twenty-six
Major Employers controlling 260,000 workers. As with assets of the
TOP 128, Melbourne and Sydney are dominant, but in reverse rank. Only

eight Major Employers are headquartered elsewhere. Three of them are

 

1The somewhat arbitrary figure of 4,000 is used for "Major
Em loyers" because these sixty-eight companies control just over one-
ha f of the total Delfin employees. In comparison, it took only a
third this many companies (those in the First Echelon) to control half
of all assets.

0f the TOP 128 companies only ten did not disclose employ-
ment in the 1967 Digest. Grace Brothers listed 4,200 in the 1965
edition and that figure is used in Table 6. The nature of the busi-
nesses of the nine other companies precludes all but Tooth and Company
from possibly being included as Major Employers. Tooth and Company
is a closely held firm and is one of the few major Australian compan-*
ies that does not disclose employment. However, on the basis of a
comparison of its assets with other big brewery firms, it is believed
that Tooth has less than 4,000 employees.

37

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Delfin Major Employers.
Number of H0 Govt or Assets

Rank Company Employees City Foreign Echelon

1. Broken Hill Proprietary Co 48,191 M

2. NSH Dept. of Railways 46,156 5 NSH

3. Victorian Railways 28,254 M Vict

4. Queensland Dept. of Railways 25,620 Br Qld II

5. Hoolworths 25,500 S II

6. State Electricity Comm. Vict 22.477 M Vict

7. Myer Emporium 21,200 M II

8. C.J. Coles and Co 21,000 M II

9. General Motors-Holden's 20,958 M US II
10. Commonwealth Banking Corp 18,270 5 Comm
11. Australian Consolidated Ind 16,000 M II
12. Bank of New South Wales 13,500 S
13. Dunlop Rubber Australia 13,000 II
14. David Jones 11,900 S III
15. H. Australian Govt. Railways 11,764 Pe H.A. II
16. I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd. 11,000 M UK
17. Ansett Transport Industries 10,343 M II
18. Choiseul Plantations (Hold) 10,000 S III
19. British Tobacco Co (Aust) 9.561 5 UK II
20. Qantas Empire Airways 9.546 S Comm II
21. Aust. & New Zealand Bank 9.536 M UK
22. South Australian Railways 9,179 Ad S.A. II
23. Colonial Sugar Refining Co 9.030 S
24. W. R. Carpenter Holdings 8,460 S III
25. Tubemakers of Australia 8.200 5 UK III
26. Ford Motor Co of Australia 7,850 M US II
27. Repco 7,772 M III
28. Electricity Comm. of NSW 7,771 5 NSW
29. Felt & Textiles of Australia 7,710 M III
30. George Weston Foods 7,500 5 UK III
31. Nat'l. Bank of Australasia 7.111 M

32. Metal Manufacturers 7,000 5 UK III
33. Sydney County Council 6.803 5 NSW 11
34. Metro. Transport Services Syd. 6,616 5 NSW

35. Shell Australian Securities 6,315 M UK
36. Australian National Airlines 6.263 M Comm 111
37. Olympic Consolidated Ind 6.200 M III
38. Humes 5,983 M III
39. Electronic Industries 5,976 M Neth III
40. McPhersons 5.938 M III
41. Commercial Bank of Australia 5,861 N
42. Electricity Trust of So. Aust. 5,810 Ad S.A. II
43. Australian Paper Manufacturers 5,800 M II

44. Amalgamated Wireless (A'asia) 5,600 5 IV
45. Chrysler Australia 5.520 Ad US III
46. H. C. Sleigh 5.505 M II
47. John Lysaght (Australia) 5,477 S UK III
48. Unilever Aust. (Holdings) 5,440 S UK III
49. Aust. Mutual Provident Soc 5,300 5

50. Email 5,250 S IV
51. Waltons 4,950 S III
52. Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort 4,921 Ad II

53. English Scottish a Aust Bank 4,841 M UK

54. Philips Industries 4.824 S Neth IV
55. Comc'l Banking Co. of Sydney 4.799 S

56. Melb. 8 Metro Tramways Board 4.614 M Melb

57. Assoc. Pulp 8 Paper Mills 4,580 M III
58. British Motor Corp. (Aust.) 4.500 S UK III
59. Conzinc Riotinto of Aust. 4.470 M UK II
60. Cox Brothers (Australia) 4,389 M IV
61. James Hardie Asbestos 4.200 S IV
62. Prestige 4,200 M

63. Grace Bros. Holdings 4.200 S III
64. Mount Isa Mines 4,122 Br US II
65. British Petroleum Co of Aust 4,027 M UK II

66. Int'l. Harvester Co. of Aust. 4,011 M US III
67. State Saving Bank of Victoria 4,001 M Vict

68. News 4,000 Ad IV

TOTAL 676.665
Summary: 260.353 by 27 Sydney Companies

345,376 by 33 Melbourne Companies

Source:

29,430 by 5 Adelaide Companies
27,742 by 2 Brisbane Companies
11,764 by 1 Perth COMpany

Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

38

state owned railways in Queensland, Western Australia, and South
Australia; another is the Electricity Trust of South Australia. None
of these large employers are headquartered in Tasmania or in any non-
capital cities or towns.

In analyzing over 900 companies instead of just the TOP 128,
or just the 68 Major Employers, this study attempts to expose much more
completely the finer details of the geography of decision-making centers
in Australia. Many smaller companies are included because they, too,
shed light on the various cities' roles and on the question of economic
cohesiveness. In the following chapters the analysis focuses on the
head offices, decision-making function, and spatial impact of each state

capital, Canberra, and foreign enterprises.

CHAPTER III

SYDNEY: A MODERN DECISION-MAKING CENTER

The first English settlement in Australia was established at
Sydney Cove on the shores of Port Jackson in 1788. This fledgling
community has grown in the ensuing 185 years to become Australia's
largest metropolitan area. Over 2.5 million persons are spread inland
from the waters of Port Jackson and Botany Bay to the very edges of
the Blue Mountains. Wealth, power, and prestige have accrued to many
persons who have chosen Sydney as the place to make their fortunes.
The city skyline is dominated by the tall buildings of the central
business district that house the corporate head offices so important
to the direction of the nation's economy (Figure 2).

As capital of the mother colony of New South Wales, Sydney
has always served as a nodal point for political and economic decision
makers who influenced a large portion of the continent. Often as com-
petitive rivals and sometimes as partners, Sydney based bankers,
merchants, industrialists, and politicians set about creating a nerve
center from which to direct the economic activities of their city, the
state, and the nation.

Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory
and, most recently, the Australian Capital Territory, have all been

created from the former area of New South Wales. As the other colonies

39

40

 

Figure 2. Sydney Central Office District. The AMP Building
and Goldfields House flank Sydney Cove to the north of the cluster of

tall buildings.

Martin Place, with a number of bank head offices is

the southern margin of the district.

AMP Society

Goldfields House

Commonwealth Banking Corp.

Bank of New South Wales
Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney
Rural Bank of New South Wales
Reserve Bank of Australia

Mutual Life & Citizens

Colonial Sugar Refining Co.

NSW Dept. of Railways
Electricity Commission of NSW
State office building
Commonwealth Center (Gov't. offices)
Australia Square

Sydney Stock Exchange

(Photo courtesy of Australian News and Information Bureau.)

41

came into being with their own capitals, Sydney's area of political

and economic dominance shrank. However, being the initial city and
colonial capital gave Sydney an unrivaled size and economic importance
for many decades. Melbourne is the only metropolitan area that
approaches Sydney's population size in recent years. During the late
1800's Melbourne was larger, but this ended in 1902. Within New South
Wales no other city approaches Sydney's population of 2,500,000 or its
economic importance. Newcastle (234,000) and Wollongong (162,000) rank
a distant second and third and are the only other urban areas with over
100,000 population in the state. Even Canberra in the Australian
Capital Territory, which is completely surrounded by New South Wales,

had only 92,000 persons in 1966 (Yearbook of Australia, 1968, 125).

 

The hypothesis that the urban functional hierarchy of Austral-
ian cities culminates in a decision-making center or centers having
nationwide importance is applied to Sydney to determine if it qualifies
as a decision-making center. The number of head offices of major
corporate and government enterprises located in Sydney and the assets
and employees controlled from these key offices are used to assess the
presence of the decision-making function in this city. The analysis
starts with a broad interpretation of the location of top level
decision-making, as defined in Chapter II. It will proceed to a
moderate and then a strict interpretation illustrating how the removal
of foreign and Commonwealth Government enterprises diminishes to some
extent this function in Sydney. Regardless of interpretation, Sydney's

role relative to other cities in Australia is not seriously impaired.

42

The Corporate Sector in Sydney

 

Numbers of Head Offices and
Assets in Industry Groups

 

 

Nearly half (46 per cent) of Australia's largest companies
have head offices in Sydney (Table 7, Column C). This represents double
the city's share of central offices when compared with its metropolitan
population which was 22 per cent of all Australians in 1966. The manu-
facturing and the primary-tertiary sectors had about the same percentage
of companies for their shares of the list. Wealth in the form of
corporate assets of these companies has also accrued to Sydney. Big and
little firms have $20,000 million, very close to half of all Delfin
assets. The distribution of these assets within the manufacturing and
primary-tertiary sectors is considerably different than the number of
head offices. Sydney has an overall majority of primary-tertiary assets
but is respectively 10 and 20 percentage points weaker in the non-
durable and durable goods manufacturing sub-sectors (Table 7, Column E).
These percentages are contrasted to the more nearly equal distribution
of head offices in these sub-sectors. Employment statistics (Column G)
more closely reflect sector shares of head offices than assets. It is
worth noting that the relative percentages of sector assets are not
based on equal amounts of total assets. Thus, Sydney's 52 per cent of
primary-tertiary assets results in control of $15,700 million. This
approaches four times the actual amount of manufacturing assets of
$4,300 million.

At the industry group level rather than sector level there is

considerable variation from the sector averages of both numbers of head

43

 

.omomwo eme_oo New, eoee eo_eaeou Hootsom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N¢.Ne ooo.omm em.w¢ omo.omw New mpe nem xmcvzm Peach
Rm.me ooo.¢w~ xe.mm mmm.m—m ewe mmF Noe xsmwpgmhixceewca
an.mm ooo.onm er.wm me.¢ A Ame mFN com mcwcauommacmz FP<
Ro.o¢ ooo.mm_ NN.N¢ dm©.~ a Add mPF cum muooo mpnmczaicoz
&¢.mm ooo.ee~ &¢.Nm Nmo._ w Ame oer omm muooe mpamczo
mcwczpueezcmz
a d m o o m <
coyomm souomm souomm
Co mam smassz Co mam cowW—ez Co mam Longsz m 00
-ucmucma lucmocma -pcmocwm cwwpmo couomm acpmzucH
chuxm Eoce xmcvxm Eose xmcnam cp Pouch
umppocpcou twp—ocpcou .
mmmonQEm mpmmm< meoweeo woo:

 

 

E

 

.msogomm Aspmzucm
xn mmmxornsm new .mummme .mmowemo new; "mmomeeo new; mocuxm sue: mmwceqsou cwepwo .n apnoe

44

offices and assets. Table 8, Part A shows Sydney has strong percentage
of assets in eleven industry groups. Conversely, this city has weak
representation in head offices and/or assets among a dozen other
industry groups (Table 8, Part B). Sydney's strengths lie in the
tertiary groups of banking; insurance; other finance which includes
hire purchase,1 home loan societies, mortgage finance, and leasing;
investment and holding companies, and other goods and services which
include hotels, theaters, broadcasting, and miscellaneous services.
Other groups with considerable financial components in their activities
are also strongly represented here. They are building and construction
which includes the property developers; agricultural and pastoral pro-
duction and distribution with its rural lending component; and, from
manufacturing, the alcoholics, tobacco group which in Australia is
important because of investments and real estate held by breweries.
Only four manufacturing groups are represented, including the above
alcoholics, tobacco group. Of all the strongly represented groups,
three are important for their actual amounts of assets as well as their
relative shares. The trading and savings banks ($7,500 million),
insurance ($2,800 million), and other finance ($1,300 million) are the
only Delfin groups having over $1,000 million assets. Together, these
three control about 58 per cent of all Sydney based assets.

A third of the industry groups are weakly represented by
head offices and/or assets in Sydney (Table 8, Part B). The smallest

 

1Hire purchase companies are equivalent to consumer install-
ment credit companies or bank consumer credit cards such as Bank
Americard or Master Charge in the U. S.

45

Table 8. Industry groups with strong or weak representation in Sydney
by companies and/or assets.

 

 

 

 

Percent-
Proportion age of
Group of Companies Group
Assets

PART A. Strong Representation
Electric Machinery, Equipment

and Supplies 24/39 68%
Petroleum Refining & Marketing 8/13 45%
Other Chemicals 24/35 70%
Alcoholics, Tobacco, 8 Malt 7/18 60%
Agricultural and Pastoral

Production and Distribution 9/14 80%
Building & Construction 16/25 77%
Banks, Trading & Saving 4/15 55%
Other Finance 25/35 72%
Insurance, Life & Non-Life 27/47 62%
Other Goods & Services 19/25 82%
Investment & Holding Co's 10/20 74%
PART 8. Weak Representation
Primary Iron & Steel 4/7 18%
Primary Non-Ferrous Metals 5/13 20%
Farm, Const. & Other Equip 3/14 23%
Motor Vehicle Assembly 2/9 9%
Metal Bldg. Supplies 8 Equip 7/20 22%
Industrial Chemicals 9/21 23%
Rubber & Plastics Products 1/9 19%
Textile Mills & Apparel Prods. 12/38 28%
Mining 8/25 21%
Wool Selling Brokers & Agents 5/16 47%
Railways, Government 1/7 39%
Utilities, Elec, Gas, & Comm 6/20 30%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

46

percentage of assets is found in the motor vehicle assembly group
which, in Australia, is dominated by foreign companies. Only one

small overseas firm has chosen Sydney for its head office and major
production site. Similarly, only one rubber company, also foreign
controlled, is here. The one-in-seven proportion of government rail—
ways is to be expected considering Australia's state ownership of rail-
roads (the seventh being owned by the Commonwealth Government).

Sydney has 22 per cent of the nation's population. The
percentage of assets in eight of the weakly represented groups is less
than or approximately equal to the city's share of the Australian p0pu-
lation. The smallest percentages in the assets column are associated
with five durable goods manufacturing groups. Together with industrial-
chemicals and rubber and plastics from the non-durable sub-sector, and
mining from the primary sector, they can be considered as "heavy
industries." All have smaller shares of group assets than the three
tertiary groups which are classed as weakly represented because they
have small proportions of their company head offices in Sydney. Most
of the utilities, like the railways, are State Government enterprises,
resulting in a geographic dispersal of head offices in each state capi-
tal. In the following chapter it will be seen that Melbourne has a
reversal of strongly and weakly represented industry groups, with

strength in manufacturing and weakness in tertiary groups.

Companies Large and Small

The 415 firms with head offices in Sydney include the first,

second, and fourth largest Delfin enterprises when ranked by assets

47

(Table 9). They are: The Federal Government owned Commonwealth

1 which

Banking Corporation; the Bank of New South Wales (Bank of NSW),
is the oldest and largest private bank; and the Australian Mutual
Provident Society (AMP), the largest life assurance house in Australia.
Table 9 identifies Sydney's twenty-four largest companies; that is,
those having assets greater than $100 million. Only summary totals are
shown for the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Echelons. It is readily appar-
ent that Sydney enterprises are dominated by the top twenty-four firms
whose combined assets of $13,477 million are two-thirds of the assets

of all 415 companies. The assets of the top-placed Commonwealth Banking
Corporation alone are more than the combined assets of all 334 companies
in the Fifth Echelon. The Delfin lists contain the mighty as well as
the not so mighty.

In addition to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Bank
of NSW, and the AMP, the First Echelon of nine companies includes one
other private and one state owned bank; another private life assurance
mutual; and two State Government authorities--the NSW Department of
Railways and the Electricity Commission of NSW. The Colonial Sugar
Refining Company (CSR) is the only manufacturer. All are Australian
owned and controlled. The banks, insurance, and capital intensive
utility and transportation authorities would be expected to head such
a list ranked by assets. These types of economic activities are also

well represented among the fifteen firms in the Second Echelon. In

 

1Companies well known in Australia by their initials will
3e referred to in this study by those initials following first intro-
uction.

Table 9.

48

Sydney based companies by assets echelons.

 

Gov't

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Echelon and Co's in Assets Industry or No. of
Company Name Echelon $ M. Group F . Empls.
or n
I Echelon > $300 M. Rank in
TOP 128
Commonwealth Banking Corp 1 3,698 Banking Commw 18,270
Bank of New South Wales 2 2,640 Banking 13,500
Aust. Mutual Provident Soc 4 1,315 Life Ins 5,000
Comcl Banking Co. of Sydney 9 835 Banking 4,799
NSW Dept of Railways 11 716 Railways NSW 46,156
Electricity Comm'n of NSW 13 565 Utility NSW 7,771
Mutual Life & Citizens 14 553 Life Ins 3,508
Rural Bank of NSW 22 309 Banking NSW 3,308
Colonial Sugar Refining Co 23 303 Food 9,030
Sub Total > $300 M 9/23 10,934 112,404
II Echelon $100-299 M.
Australian Guarantee Corp. 27 267 Other Fin 1,348
I.A.C. (Holdings) 30 229 Other Fin 1,182
Dalgety & New Zealand Loan 32 200 Wool Brkr UK 3,500
Ampol Petroleum 34 184 Petr Ref 2,575
Woolworth Ltd 35 182 Retail 25,500
Govt Insurance Office of NSW 36 178 Insurance NSW 953
British Tobacco Co 39 174 Tobacco UK 9,561
City Mutual Life Assurance 40 173 Life Ins 431
Qantas Empire Airways 43 163 Transport Commw 9,546
Prudential Assurance Co 45 161 Life Ins UK n/a
Custom Credit Corp 46 161 Other Fin 685
Comcl & General Acceptance 54 131 Other Fin 420
Sydney County Council 56 126 Utility NSW 6,803
Boral Ltd 63 109 Petr Ref 2,967
Australian Oil Refining 67 105 Petr Ref US n/a
Sub Total $100-299 M 15/47 2,543 65,467
Cumulative > $100 M. 24/70 13,477 117,871
III Echelon $50-99 M. 32/58 2,193 105,753
Cumulative > $50 M. 56/128 15,669 283,624
IV Echelon $30-49 M. 25/48 976 55,729
V Echelon < $30 M. 334/731 3,381 220,532
Total Sydney Companies 415/907 20,026 559,885

 

Source:

Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

49

addition, manufacturing is represented by British Tobacco, which
dominates cigarette production and distribution, and three capital
intensive companies in petroleum refining and marketing, iLe., Ampol,
Boral, and Australian Oil Refining. Dalgety-New Zealand Loan, the
leading wool selling broker, and Woolworths, one of Australia's two
largest variety chain stores, complete the list of industries repre-
sented by the top twenty-four companies. Dalgety—New Zealand Loan,
British Tobacco, Prudential Assurance (all United Kingdom), and the
Australian Oil Refining Company (United States) are the only very large
foreign firms with Sydney head offices. Their $640 million assets are
relatively small compared to the $5,755 million controlled by the seven
Commonwealth and State Government authorities, and the $7,081 million
by the thirteen top private domestic Australian firms.

In this elite group of twenty-four companies, only five are
manufacturers. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company is the most import-
ant being the second largest domestic manufacturing corporation in
Australia. Its primary activities are the growing, milling, refining,
and marketing of sugar in Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji. It has
also strongly diversified into building materials, chemicals, mining,
and, in addition, has one of Australia's largest investment portfolios.
Its size and importance as a manufacturer, not only to Sydney but within
Australia, is reflected in its rank of twenty-third among Australia's
TOP 128 companies. The only other manufacturers in the First Echelon

are the Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP),1 and the United Kingdom

 

1Among world corporations, the Broken Hill Proprietary Com-
pany and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company are the only two Australian

50

controlled Imperial Chemical Industries of Australian and New Zealand
(ICIANZ) and Shell Securities. These three have their Australian head
offices in Melbourne.

Extending this analysis to the Delfin middle-sized companies
in Sydney, those having assets of $50 to $99 million, we find an addi-
tional thirty-two headquarters in Sydney controlling an added
$2,193 million.1 An increasing diversity of economic activity is repre-
sented in twenty industry groups. Twelve companies in manufacturing
include repeats in petroleum refining, and alcoholics and tobacco. The
latter has Tooth and Company, Sydney's major brewery. New groups in
primary-tertiary are: mining, with Consolidated Goldfields; two com-
panies in agricultural production; two in building and construction;

a holding company; and one investment bank, Development Finance

Corporation--publishers of the Delfin Digest. Six additional firms in

 

other finance, another utility, and three more retailers are added to
the groups already listed for the top two Echelons. In summary, Sydney
is headquarters for fifty-six of the Delfin TOP 128 large and medium
size companies. The industry spread is broad but not complete as
twenty-five of the thirty-six industry groups have the head office of

at least one of these larger firms in Sydney.

 

firms included in the Fortune magazine directory of "The 200 Largest
Industrial Companies Outside the U. S." In 1966 BHP ranked 55th, and
CSR was 101, based upon estimated sales (Fortune, Sept., 1967). The
1966 ranking is used to be comparable with other data in this research
paper.

1These Third Echelon companies are named and ranked in the
last section of Table 4, The TOP 128 Delfin Companies.

51

There are 359 smaller Delfin companies with head offices in
Sydney. It is their number and industry diversity rather than large
size that lend support to the city's decision-making role. Although on
the tag end of assets in the Delfin list, they are certainly large
enough in the total Australian corporate picture to have importance
within their industry for Sydney, the state, and in many cases the
nation. Only three groups have no Fourth and Fifth Echelon firms, but
all of these--the government railways, banks, and rubber and plastics--
have one or more large enterprises with a Sydney head office. All other
industry groups have at least one smaller company, with food and drink
having the most, thirty. Although small in assets, these firms as well
as the larger ones have another importance in the total number of persons

they employ.

Headquarters for a Half-Million Employees

 

A work force of 560,000 persons is controlled from Sydney's
415 head offices. They constitute 42 per cent of all the employees of
the Delfin companies. This can be compared with the 46 per cent of
head offices and 48 per cent of assets based in Sydney (see Table 7).
The half million employees are about 12 per cent of the total Australian
work force of 4,800,000. Although many of the Delfin company employees
work in the Sydney metropolitan area, many others work throughout New
South Wales and in all other states and capital cities. This dispersed
employment is particularly true for these 415 larger companies. The
great bulk of Australia's small businesses which do not appear on the
Delfin list are more likely to be local or statewide in their employ-

ment patterns rather than national.

52

Sydney's share of employees in the Delfin manufacturing
sector almost duplicates her share of assets. However, the 45 per cent
of primary-tertiary employment is considerably less than the 52 per cent
of assets in this sector (see Table 7). When the actual figures are
examined manufacturing has only 8,000 less employees than are in
primary-tertiary, a difference that might be removed if all Delfin com-
pany employment figures were disclosed.

The New South Wales government railways stands out as the
premier employer headquartered in Sydney. Its staff of 46,000 consti-
tutes very nearly 1 per cent of the total Australian work force. Only
Melbourne's Broken Hill Pr0prietary Company has a somewhat larger number
of employees. Other Delfin Major Employers headquartered in Sydney are
listed in Table 10.

Large employment is not necessarily directly equated with
control of large assets. Some industry groups, such as banking, insur-
ance, petroleum refining and industrial chemicals are capital intensive.
The manufacture of electrical machinery and equipment, textiles, and
retailing and transportation tend to be more labor intensive. Most of
Sydney's First Echelon companies rank near the top of Table 10. However,
the AMP and the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney are near the bottom,
below a number of less wealthy firms including the Fifth Echelon Sydney
Metropolitan Transport Service, which has assets of only $16 million.
Even with these anomalies and others, Sydney's fifty-six head offices
from the TOP 128 (see Table 9) control just half of the disclosed Delfin

employees headquartered here. This leaves the other half distributed

Table 10.

4,000 employees).

 

53

Sydney based Major Employers (Delfin companies with more than

M

Rank in

 

 

N0. of . Assets
Company Empl. 684C803 Mfg Size
1. NSW Dept. of Railways 46,156 2 I
2. Woolworths 25,500 5 II
3. Commonwealth Banking Corp 18,270 10 I
4. Bank of New South Wales 13,500 12 I
5. David Jones 11,900 14 III
6. Choiseul Plantations 10,000 18 III
7. British Tobacco Co (Aust) 9,561 19 M II
8. Qantas Empire Airways 9,546 20 II
9. Colonial Sugar Refining Co 9,030 23 M I
10. W. R. Carpenter Holdings 8,460 24 III
11. Tubemakers of Australia 8,200 25 M III
12. Electricity Comm. of NSW 7,771 28 I
13. George Weston Foods 7,500 30 M III
14. Metal Manufacturers 7,000 32 M III
15. Sydney County Council 6,803 33 II
16. Metro Transport Services 6,616 34 V
17. Amalgamated Wireless A'asia 5,600 44 M IV
18. John Lysaght (Australia) 5,477 47 M III
19. Unilever Aust (Holdings) 5,440 48 M III
20. Aust. Mutual Provident Soc 5,300 49 I
21. Email 5,250 50 M IV
22. Waltons 4,950 51 III
23. Philips Industries Holdings 4,824 54 M IV
24. Comcl Banking Co of Sydney 4,799 55 I
25. British Motor Corp (Aust) 4,500 58 M III
26. J. Hardie Asbestos 4,200 61 M IV
27. Grace Brothers Holdings 4,200 63 III
Total 260,353 12 MFG
Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

 

 

54

among 359 smaller firms which in aggregate make these lesser companies
also important to the assessment of Sydney's role.

The decision-making function as evidenced by the head offices
of Delfin companies, has a commanding presence in Sydney. All three
measures, number of companies, assets, and employees, show percentages
approximately double the metropolitan area's pr0portion of the Austral-
ian population. Whether looking at the very wealthy and large employers
or at the many smaller businesses, Sydney is well represented in most
industrial groups. Her mix of industry group assets is equally broad,
but strongly biased towards the tertiary and primary sectors.

The foregoing analysis has been made under the assumptions
of a broad interpretation of the location of top level decision-
making. The following assessment of foreign firms operating through
Sydney will show the effects of a moderate interpretation, wherein
foreign controlled firms, assets, and employees are subtracted from the
overall Delfin company measures.

Foreign Controlled Companies with
Head Offices in Sydney

 

 

Sydney has been a base for non-Australian companies since
its inception as a British colony in the late 17th Century. When the
several British colonies on the continent joined into the politically
autonomous Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, British firms were solidly
entrenched in most sectors of the economy. It is a profound tribute to
the Australians that they have created a strong domestically controlled
economy while at the same time not nationalizing or "booting out"

foreign enterprise. Australia continues to encourage such investment

55

in the development of her resources and to meet demands that cannot be
satisfied by domestic firms or capital. Most recently large overseas
companies have brought into production the huge iron ore deposits of
northwestern Australia, the Bass Strait oil fields, and the Queensland
bauxite and coal deposits. Continued expansion occurs in the automobile
assembly, petroleum refining, and chemical industries, all of which are
foreign dominated. There is a growing concern among Australian politi-
cians, businessmen, and financiers that such foreign enterprises have
greater Australian management and financial participation.
Wheelwright's Anatomy of Australian Manufacturing Industry
(1967) is a solidly detailed analysis of the ownership and control of
300 major manufacturers operating in Australia. A substantial part of
his analysis was concerned with the extent of foreign decision-making
control as well as ownership of these firms. This present study of
Delfin companies is less detailed but more comprehensive, based upon
500 manufacturing companies, and 407 others in primary and tertiary
industries, and includes 47 government statutory authorities. The

Delfin Digest (1967, 34 and 36) itself devotes attention to the question

 

of foreign control and gives summaries by industry groups for Australia,
the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries. It does not
show foreign control summaries for Australian cities.

Under a moderate interpretation foreign control means that
the ultimate decision-making power rests outside Australia. It is not
ascertainable for any given firm how much of this top responsibility
there may have been delegated to a domestic Australian board of directors

and management. It is known that the head offices for Australian

56

operations of these firms do have certain amounts of autonomy, some far
more than others. To measure each city's importance as a decision-
making center under a moderate interpretation, foreign controlled
companies operating through domestic head offices in a city are sub—
tracted from that city's total. At best, this is an unrefined correct-
ion, probably excessively reducing the amount of important decision

and policy-making that actually takes place in each city. Any error

is thus on the conservative side, reducing each city's decision-making
importance more than it should be. However, the fact remains that the
ultimate power does rest overseas.

There are no foreign firms in the First Echelon operating
through Sydney (see Table 9). In the Second Echelon Dalgety and New
Zealand Loan ranks first in foreign company assets controlled through
Sydney. It is one of the oldest United Kingdom companies operating
here and the leader in the wool selling broker group. It is a major
force in the rural areas of the economy, acting as agents for wool and
livestock selling as well as being an important supplier of stock and
station needs. Not the least of its varied roles is as a lender of
rural credit. Dalgety employs 3,500 in Australia. Only three other
Sydney based foreign companies have greater than $100 million assets.
British Tobacco (UK) and the Australian Oil Refining Company (US) are
strong in the manufacturing sector. Prudential Assurance is a major
force in the life assurance business although ranking fourth behind
three domestic firms headquartered here. Neither Prudential nor
Australian Oil Refinery disclosed employees, but it is estimated that

each have between 500 and 1,000. The combined assets of $640 million

57

for these foreign companies in the top two Echelons are only about
5 per cent of the top twenty-four Sydney headquartered firms.

Another thirteen foreign companies are in the Third Echelon
of medium-sized companies. Their combined assets are just short of
$1,000 million. They include Metal Manufacturers, John Lysaght, and
Tubemakers of Australia, all United Kingdom primary metal producers
and marketers. American petroleum refiners and marketers, Caltex,
E550, and Amoco are among the eleven manufacturers. Others are Unilever
Australia, George Weston Foods, British Motor Corporation, and Common-
wealth Industrial Gases, all British; and Goodyear Tyre and Rubber, an
American firm. Consolidated Goldfields Australia (UK) is the big
mining house in Sydney.1 It is the only mining company, foreign or
domestic, in the top four Echelons. Lombard Australia (UK) is the
only other concern in the primary-tertiary sector and is active in the
other finance, hire purchase sub-groups. There are eight foreign Major
Employers in Sydney (see Table 10). Most are among these Third Echelon
companies.

Considering all 150 foreign firms operating through Sydney,
manufacturing is represented better than two-to-one in both headquarters
and assets over the primary-tertiary sector. All manufacturing groups
have at least one such head office. Farm, construction, and other

equipment with four, industrial chemicals with nine, and rubber and

 

1This multinational firm occupied its Australian head
offices in the new Goldfields House in 1965. This impressive and
highly visible structure overlooks Sydney Cove and is complementary
to the AMP building at the east end of Circular Quay (see Figure 2).

58

plastics with one, have only foreign firms headquartered in Sydney.
Three other groups have a predominance of overseas companies; electri-
cal machinery with 15 of 24; petroleum refining with 6 of 8; and other
chemicals, especially the pharmaceutical sub-group, with 21 of 24.
When measured by assets twelve of the twenty manufacturing industries
are substantially more than 50 per cent foreign controlled. Only the
mining and wool selling brokers groups in the primary-tertiary sector
are so dominated-~by the already mentioned Consolidated Goldfields and
Dalgety and New Zealand Loan.

In the manufacturing sector exactly one half of the Sydney
headquartered firms are foreign. They also control one-half of the
sector assets and about half the workers. Contrasted with this is the
very weak presence of foreign companies in the primary-tertiary sector.
They number 41 of 197 Sydney firms, have one-fifteenth of the assets,
and just 12 per cent of the employees.

It is important to note that these 150 enterprises are not
all controlled from one nation, let alone just one other city. This,
in part, dilutes the effect of foreign control through competitive
factors. The United Kingdom and the United States each have seventy
companies with Australian head offices in Sydney. Because of older
and broader representation, especially in insurance, wool-brokering,
primary metals, electrical machinery, tobacco, mining, and motor vehicle
assembly, British firms have $1,900 million to the American's
$1,000 million assets. The latter have invested relatively more in
petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, farm and construction equipment,

rubber tires, and packaging. The British employ lO0,000 compared to

59

44,000 by Americans. Five Swiss firms, and one each for Canada,
France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Hong Kong, make up the ten remain-
ing foreign operations. The largest of these, only a Third Echelon
company with $68 million, is the hire purchase firm, Mercantile Credits.
It is 40 per cent owned by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpora-
tion.

The total influence of foreigners operating through Sydney
is substantial but not dominant. They represent 36 per cent of the
city's Delfin companies, only 16 per cent of assets, and 28 per cent
of employees. By subtracting their totals from Sydney's overall stat-
istics, we arrive at an adjusted measure of domestic decision-making

headquartered here.

Head Assets
Offices Millions Employees
Total Sydney 415 $20,026 560,000
Foreign Controlled - 150 - 3,230 - 158,500
Sydney Domestic 265 $16,796 401,500

The bottom line represents Sydney's strength under a moderate interpre-
tation of the location of top level decision-making. The measures
include Commonwealth Government enterprises in the Delfin lists which
have head offices in Sydney. Governmental economic decision-making

located in Sydney is amenable to both moderate and strict interpretations.

Economic Decision-Makin by the
Government Séctor in ydney

 

Commonwealth Organizations
Sydney plays a role as an economic decision-making center for

various levels of government as well as for the corporate sector. It

60

is the capital of New South Wales, the most populous state. In addition,
a number of Commonwealth Government instrumentalities have their head
offices here. Two very important economic components of the central
government now located in Sydney grew out of the Commonwealth Bank of
Australia established in 1911. These keystones in the economic struct-
ure of the nation are the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth
Banking Corporation. The Reserve Bank was created in 1959, acquiring
the central bank function, the Note Issue Department, and the Rural
Credits Department of the former Commonwealth Bank. The trading, sav-
ings, and development bank roles were organized as separate banks under
the new Commonwealth Banking Corporation, a statutory authority created
in that same year. The reason these descendants of the original Common-
wealth Bank are in Sydney today is because its first governor was the
former chairman of the Bank of New South Wales, who did not desire to
leave Sydney and, thus, the bank became established here. The Reserve
Bank occupied its new head office building in 1971 (Figure 3).

It has already been seen that the Commonwealth Banking Corp-
oration is the largest enterprise on the entire Delfin list. The
Reserve Bank was not included in the list because of its non-corporate
governmental nature. If inserted, its assets of $2,335 million in
1966 (Yearbook of Australia, 1968, 643) would rank third, just below
the $2,640 million of the privately owned Bank of New South Wales.
Assigned to Sydney in a moderate interpretation, the Reserve Bank assets
would replace nearly three-fourths of the foreign controlled assets
lost under such an interpretation. Impressive as this amount is, the

true measure of the economic decision-making importance of the Reserve

 

61

 

Figure 3. Sydney Government Buildings.

Commonwealth

RBA Reserve Bank of Australia head office.
Qantas Empire Airways head office.
CC Commonwealth Center (Gov't. offices).

State
P New South Wales Parliament House
SO Site of State office building (See Figure 3).
RB Rural Bank of New South Wales.

(Photo courtesy of Australian News and Information
Bureau.)

62

Bank is in its statement of general function (Yearbook of Australia,
1968, 641).

It is the duty of the Board, within the limits of its power,
to ensure that the monetary and banking policy of the Bank is
directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia
and that the powers of the Bank under this act, the Banking
Act 1959, and regulations under that act are exercised in such
a manner as, in the opinion of the Board, will best contribute
to
(a) the stability of the currency of Australia;
(b) the maintenance of full employment in Australia;
and
(c) the economic prosperity and welfare of the people
of Australia.

Two other Commonwealth statutory authorities, of eight listed

in the Delfin Digest, are headquartered in Sydney. Both are more import-

 

ant internationally than internally. They are Qantas Empire Airways
(Figure 3), the government overseas airline, and the Overseas Tele-
communications Commission.

No central office of any department of the Commonwealth has
been located in Sydney as contrasted to Melbourne, which was the tempor-
ary seat of government and still retains some department head offices,
as will be seen in the following chapter. A number of other organiza-
tions of the central government do have headquarters in Sydney, includ-
ing the above mentioned banks, Qantas, and the Overseas Telecommunica-
tions Commission (Table 11). The Australian Stevedoring Industry
Authority and the Australian Meat Board have strong economic importance
through regulatory activities over their respective industries. The
Australian Broadcasting Commission is responsible for the national
radio and television networks, which operate in competition with private
broadcasters throughout Australia. It is a major force in the communi-

cations of cultural, social, political, and economic attitudes and

63

Table 11. Commonwealth government organizations with head offices in
Sydney in 1966.

W

 

 

 

 

 

Employeesa Minister
1966-67 Responsible
Ministerial Departments
None
Other Organizations
Reserve Bank of Australia 2,901 Treasurer
Commonwealth Banking Corporation 19,309 Treasurer
Qantas Empire Airways 8,492 Civil Aviation
Australian Broadcasting Comm'n 5,033 Postmaster-
Overseas Telecommunications Comm 1,304 General
Commonwealth Hostels Ltd 2,519 Labour and
Australian Stevedoring Industry Nat'l Service
Authority n/a "
Coal Industry Tribunal n/a "
Australian Atomic Energy Comm'n 1,092 National
Joint Coal Board n/a Development
Australian Meat Board n/a Primary
Australian Egg Board n/a Industry
Australian Honey Board n/a "
Australian Shipbuilding Board n/a Shipping &
Transport
Export Payments Insurance Corp n/a Trade & Indus
Commw. Film Censureship Board n/a Customs & Excise
Total 40,650

 

aEmployees are those listed under the Public Service Act.‘

Source: Commonwealth of Australia Directory, 1966, and employ-
ment from Australia in Facts anleigures, No. 99, Sept., 1968.

64

ideas. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Joint Coal Board,
Shipbuilding Board, and other regulatory boards are of relatively
moderate economic importance.

Under a moderate interpretation, the head offices of the two
government banks with their huge assets, central policy function, and
important departments and divisions, are the principal avenues through
which Sydney's role as a decision-making center is enhanced by elements
of the central government. However, under a strict interpretation, the
ultimate control of the assets of these banks and other Commonwealth
organizations and the ultimate top level decision-making are assigned
to Parliament. It is the paramount Commonwealth Government decision-
making body. Thus, these measures of the function are subtracted from
Sydney and assigned to Canberra. A strict interpretation leaves Sydney
with only private domestic companies and State Government enterprises.
After assessing State Government organizations, a summary of the three
measures, head offices, assets, and employees will be contrasted for
the three different interpretations.

New South Wales State Enterprises,
Employees, and Policy Making

As the capital of New South Wales, economic decisions made
in Sydney by the State Parliament and various departments, agencies,
and boards directly affect 4.3 million New South Welshmen, 37 per cent
of the national population (see Figure 3). Nine State statutory auth-
orities had large enough assets to be included in the Delfin list. The
Department of Railways is the largest. Second is the Electricity

Commission, the principal producer of electricity. The rural bank and

65

government insurance offices, like the railways, are important throughout
the state, especially the rural sectors. Of more limited importance in
assets, employees, and spatially, are the State Mines Control Authority,
a major coal producer with mines near Wollongong, the State Brickworks
with its one plant in Sydney, and the Metropolitan Transport Services
which provide bus services in Sydney and Newcastle. The Sydney County
Council and St. George County Council are primarily electricity distri-
butors in parts of the Sydney metropolitan area.

With the exception of statutory authorities, figures on assets
are not generally available on any comparable basis for State Government
organizations. However, employment statistics are available in the
Yearbook of Australia. In 1967 there were 202,000 employees on New
South Wales State payrolls, 46,000 of whom worked for the railways. The
other 156,000 were in a wide variety of economic activities and social
services including public works, transportation, utilities, factories,
mining, education, health, and police, as well as the central adminis-
trative employees. The total of 202,000 is 4 per cent of the Australian
work force, which makes the New South Wales Government the second
largest employer in Australia. It is second only to the Commonwealth
Government's 291,000 civilian employees.

In view of Australia's relatively small population of
11,500,000 in 1966, it is important to note that some aspects of econo-
mic activity have centered at the state level and have not become
exclusive to the central government or fragmented at the local level.

In terms of assets, employment, and economic importance, the state

railway systems stand out. Electricity production, main roads, public

66

works, savings banking, hospitals, police, and all levels of education
are other important state activities. The states also engage rather
extensively in housing, mainly through financial and administrative
support, rather than as actual builder or employer.

The prior separate colonial economic structures, the huge
areal size of the nation, and strong state loyalties, all work towards
continued economic importance for state governments. The top level
state decision-makers and their head offices are almost exclusively in
Sydney. The work force and assets which they control are all within
New South Wales. State Government decision-making is added to that of
the domestic private sector in all interpretations of the location of
this top most function.

Comparisons of Measures Under
Three Interpretations

 

 

Having detailed the measures of decision-making in Sydney,
the summary data are here compared under three interpretations. The
reader can see and judge for himself the effects of excluding foreign
companies from Sydney (Figure 4). A moderate interpretation reduces
head offices from 416 under a broad interpretation to 266, or only 29
per cent of 910 total companies. A further subtraction of the four
Commonwealth enterprises headquartered here has only a minor effect on
the number of head offices but reduces assets by $6,236 million, from
41.5 per cent to 28 per cent under a strict interpretation. The employ-
ees measure is based on the 2,000,000 workers of the Delfin companies
and all Federal and State Government employees. A broad interpretation

gives Sydney 34 per cent (701,600), whereas a moderate interpretation

67

mmmxdpaso newscco>ow zupmmzcossou —_e ecu .mmoxcpaeo acmsecm>ow macaw 3mz Fpu

 

 

.e__eeon=< Co Scented» weep see gnomes ewepoo New. eoee eopeaeoo

"musaom

.mwo—eeo two; zucuzm sauces» toppogucou

.momceqsou cmepoo zucvxw wows—ocua

.wwpecums< Co xcmm m>emmmm on» use mmmcmnsou ewe—ma zochm noun—ocua
.zocuzm Lou meowpouocagmpcw powsum uce .mpecmuoe .umoen eo mcomwsoneou .e mczmmu

 

 

   

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

 

 

 

cmmmsom .zesou .u.>ow mueam owumosoo oum>msa
0 .................. 0
0 ”MTV”. ............................. no m a
.o Wewmm oc_.eap ace eon
mwnwfiwfiwfiwawmwfi. mm“
or- .................. .
men new new
3954- oueeovoz IL T1 not”; 5539.235
n.mmum>ogazm
cowocou a >oo .zeeoo ououm ovumwsoo mum>pca
emm we coo.__»
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ N
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI ml
KT. umogm rm. wuogmuoz rTi powcum :o_umuwgagmucu
a» monEAH: zH mhmmm<
savaged .p.>ow .xssau.e .u.>ow ouepm owpmmeoo aam>wcm
mmw
r1 .595 39.25: L r1 “2.5m 5539.235
umuuuuuc o<uz ma ammzaz

 

 

68

reduces this to 26 per cent and strict to 24 per cent, which includes

a very large State Government component of 196,100. Even in the strict-
ist interpretation, Sydney's strength attributable to private domestic
companies and the State Government is formidable. In 1966 the Sydney
Metropolitan Area had 22 per cent of the Australian population. Closest
to this figure is the 24 per cent in the employment measure under a
strict interpretation. The other two measures, at 28 per cent each,

are well ahead of the population figure. Assets are more strongly
influenced than the other two measures when Commonwealth enterprises
headquartered in Sydney are added. The Reserve Bank data are included
in both the moderate and broad interpretations. Foreign companies
contribute much more to the number of head offices and employees in
Sydney than does the central government. Under a broad interpretation,
the city has roughly half the assets and head offices and a third of

the employees. _

Regardless of which interpretation is used, it is concluded
that Sydney has a strong decision-making role in the Australian economy.
This is based on the high proportions of head offices here and the
assets and employees controlled from these most central of establish—
ments. Before concluding whether or not the city is a decision-making
center, its nodal region for this function must be determined. Perform-
ing decision-making for a wide region beyond the metropolitan area is

essential to the definition of such a center.

The Spatial Impact of Sydney

Sydney is the oldest city in Australia. Companies headquartered

here have had in many cases the longest time to branch out as

69

multi-establishment firms with statewide and interstate units. The
city was an early center for wealth which accrued to it both from over-
seas investment through Sydney as well as profits generated by local
firms. This wealth has been reinvested in companies for expansion,
which often meant opening up branch distribution units and, later, pro-
cessing units in other state capitals and cities.

The spatial impact and, hence, the nodal region for Sydney
is indicated by the number of Delfin companies operating nationally,
regionally, or locally. The distribution by states of the Delfin com-
pany processing establishments and total Delfin establishments more
precisely measure Sydney's nodal region for decision-making. The
analysis is done under a strict interpretation, 142;; excluding foreign
and Commonwealth establishments controlled through Sydney. This results

in delimiting Sydney's minimum nodal region.

Number of Companies

The Delfin Digest identifies 253 private domestic companies

 

and 9 state and local statutory authorities with headquarters in Sydney.
Of these, 125 are classified as national companies (Table 12). Most
firms have establishments in all six states. "National" companies
include thirty-two which have units in only five states but which market
or otherwise operate through agents and representatives in all states.
In thirty instances the state not having a Sydney company unit is Tas-
mania. Also grouped with the "national" companies are seven others
which operate in only five states plus the Australian Capital Territory
and/or the Northern Territory, but not in one of the other states.

Again, Tasmania or Western Australia is usually not represented.

70

Table 12. Sydney private domestic companies and state statutory
authorities operating in number of states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Total Number Companies in Smaller
Establishments 1" of Companies TOP 128 Companies
6 States 86 19 67
5 States & Market

Nationally 32 4 28
5 States 7 l 6
Total National 125 24 101
4 States 14 l 13
3 States 22 1 21
2 States 29 l 28
Multi-State Reg'l. 65 3 62
1 State and Local 72 8 64
TOTAL SYDNEY 262 35 227

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

71

Companies from all assets Echelons operate nationally as
well as regionally and locally. Sydney has 35 firms among the TOP 128.
Of these, 24 have national operations including; the two big private
banks, Bank of New South Wales and the Commercial Banking Company of
Sydney; three life assurance companies, the Australian Mutual Provident
Society, Mutual Life and Citizens, and City Mutual Life; and nine firms
in the other finance group. David Jones department stores and Wool-
worth's chain of variety stores are in retail. Others are W. R. Carpenter
in agriculture and diversified investments, John Fairfax publishers, and
Hooker Investments and Lend Lease Corporation representing building and
real estate. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Ampol, Boral, and
Clyde Industries are prominent national manufacturers. These companies,
together with the 101 in the lower Echelons, are drawn from almost all
of the industry groups.

Only three multi-state regional companies are in the top
Echelon. Waltons and Grace Brothers department store chains operate in
four and three states respectively, Blue Metal Industries provides build-
ing materials in New South Wales and Victoria. Smaller firms are much
more prevalent among the companies which operate in two to four states.
In many cases they have their head offices and principal production
facilities only in Sydney (and sometimes processing in Melbourne) and
just distribution or branch office establishments in New South Wales,
Victoria, and eitheerueensland or South Australia. Branches are most
frequently missing in Tasmania and Western Australia. Firms from the
TOP 128 operating only within New South Wales or locally include five

State Government authorities: the NSW Railways, the Electricity

72

Commission, Rural Bank, State Insurance Offices, and the Sydney County
Council. Choiseul Plantations, whose main activities are in the Solomon
Islands, has only its head office in Sydney. The Australian Gas Light
Company serves the Sydney metropolitan area. Tooth and Company sells
its beer statewide through a number of company controlled or owned
hotels. More of the smaller companies operate nationally than either
regionally or only within the state.

It is not possible to determine the distribution of assets
by states of Delfin companies having their head offices in Sydney.
However, the aggregate assets can be given for those firms operating
nationally versus regionally, or only in one state and locally. When
the assets are grouped in this manner, the national firms have the

largest share (Table 13).

Table 13. Assets by areas of operations of Sydney based companies.

 

 

 

 

Area of Number of Assets Percentage
Operation Companies $m. of Assets
National 125 $ 9,334 72+%

4, 3, or 2
States 65 821 6+%

1 State or
Local 72 2,740 21+%
Total 262 $12,895 100 %

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

It is apparent from both numbers of companies and their assets that

nationally operating companies are much more important in Sydney than

73

are regional ones. Companies having activities only in New South Wales

or, more restrictively, only in Sydney, make up about one-fifth of the
assets. The three-quarters of Sydney's assets controlled by nationally
important companies should be kept in mind during the analysis of the

distribution of establishments.

Processing Establishments

The number of processing and other establishments in each
state is given for most of the companies in the Delfin Digest. In the
case of a few companies information from annual reports, Universal

Business Directories, telephone directories, and field observations is

 

used to determine locations of establishments not given in the Qiflfiél:
Processing establishments are particularly important to this analysis
because they are often the key units of companies which market nation-
wide. Such establishments include a wide variety of production and
processing facilities; factories of every description from the great
steel mills to small local bottling plants; mines, sawmills, sheep
stations, wheat farms, and fish processing plants. Regardless of size,
each is counted as a single establishment. Although quite different
items are being grouped together, roughly the same relative mixture is
being grouped for each of the capital cities. The numbers of processing
establishments and their distributions among the states are what is
important.

There are two ways of analyzing the distribution of establish-
ments whose corporate head offices are in Sydney. The first is to look

at the number and proportion of establishments controlled from Sydney

74

and examine their distribution among the several states. The second
way is to look at the number and percentage of establishments in each
state that are controlled from Sydney.

About a third of all Delfin processing units are controlled
from Sydney, 1,571 of 4,351. Over half of these are located in New
South Wales, as would be expected (Table 14).

Table 14. The distribution of processing establishments controlled
from Sydney.

 

 

 

 

Location of Number of Percentage of
Establishments Units Sydney Units
New South Wales 857 54.6%
Victoria 275 17.5%
South Australia 112 7.1%
Queensland 185 11.8%
Western Australia 80 5.1%
Tasmania 25 1.6%
Northern Territory 11 .7%

A. C. T. 26 1.7%
Sydney Total 1,571 100.0%
Delfin Total 4,351

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

Sydney companies also carry on production in all other states and terri-
tories with the strongest showing in Victoria and Queensland (Figure 5).
A different picture is gained from examining the percentage of

each state's Delfin establishments that is controlled by Sydney based

75

.mmeeauuaswa

 

acagampmp aaa .mmwgauuacvo mmacwmam pamea>was .ummmwo :WCFmo mmmF sage ampwaeau "augaam

.zmcaxm Ease

aappaguaaa mp=w2:mwpaapma papa» mawmmaaaca c_e_mo ma cowpanwsumvo .m weaned

oomK \ Ch.— >wZO>m ZhOh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:2: 80.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thD 00— E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
.-
III-Iii! . p

 

a
r

 

 

 

 

>wzo>m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>mZQ>m
20mm QijEOU
mémquhmm van—AND

 

m...2w<<1w...¢<hmw
412.0»

thmizflghmu
028mm;

76

firms. Because there are widely different numbers of such facilities

in each state, this viewpoint gives a better measure of the city's rela-
tive spatial impact (Figure 6). Sydney controls over half of all
processing establishments in New South Wales, and controls from 15 to

70 per cent of such establishments in the other states and territories
(Table 15).

Table 15. The number of processing establishments in each state and
percentage of state units controlled from Sydney.

 

 

 

 

State Processing Controlled Percentage of
Units from Sydney State Units

New South Wales 1,539 857 55.7%
Victoria 1,268 275 21.7%
South Australia 433 112 25.9%
Queensland 551 185 33.6%
Western Australia 327 80 24.5%
Tasmania 167 25 15.0%
Northern Territory 29 11 37.9%
A. C. T. 37 26 70.3%

Total 4,351 1,571 36.1%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

The relative impact of Sydney companies is strongest in the
Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, the Northern Territory,
and Queensland. In terms of numbers of establishments, the impact is
greatest in the home state of New South Wales by a substantial margin,

followed by a large number of units in Victoria. The percentage of

77

KLEIN PROCESSING

II
ESTABLISIENTS 1"
‘1, 351 '2
ELLE 7“
a 'v
is BLEDR/
S

SMABPOF
I
I
I
I
I

551

_._._..__._I_
f “I snuror

i 433 .I

SHABPOF I

v / L
I
51;“ i \{1 .}

PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENTS i\§\" A B P o F ' ’
SYDNEY CONTROL

O

a}
‘. l 157

‘10: snaaruor

SHABPOF

/"

/

\SHABPOF

.‘9

 

O 500

 

Figure 6. The percentage of each state's Delfin processing
establishments controlled from Sydney.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

78

establishments in each state that is controlled from Sydney is greater
in most cases than the proportion of units controlled from the capital
cities of other states (Figure 6). The major exception is Melbourne's
dominance in Victoria. In Queensland, for example, Sydney firms have
more than twice the number of processing establishments than do Brisbane

based firms.

Total Number of Establishments

 

The total number of Delfin establishments includes distribution
and office units as well as the preceding processing units. Again, a
great variety of other economic activities and their associated estab-
lishments are grouped together. Retail stores, warehouses, transporta-
tion facilities, offices of all kinds including the central administra-
tive offices of companies, are all included. The largest department
stores and the smallest branch offices are in the mix.

Sydney is headquarters for over 7,000 establishments nation-
wide. Although this aggregate figure is more than four times the number
of processing units along, the relative spatial distribution by states
is in nearly the same prOportions (see Figure 5).

There are greater variations in the shares of each states'
total establishments controlled from Sydney when compared with the same
figures for processing units along (compare Tables 15 and 16 and Figures
6 and 7). Each of the percentages for total units is less than for
processing units except for Tasmania. The total for all Sydney units
is 31 per cent, whereas processing units accounted for 36 per cent of

the national total. Thus, Sydney has control over a greater share of

79

TOTAL DELFIN
ESTABLISHilTS

a l 23.4141

eggs 3

3.252 '

t.-‘—.~I~'-'~" (I
1-

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
SYDNEY CONTROL

0 500

SHAIPHOF

 

Figure 7. The percentage of each state's total Delfin establish-
ments controlled from Sydney.

Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,

Source:
and telephone directories.

80

Table 16. The number of total establishments in each state and the
percentage of state units controlled from Sydney.

 

fi‘r

LL

7

 

 

State Total Controlled Percentage of
Units from Sydney State Units

New South Wales 7,879 3,936 50.0%
Victoria 6,280 1,150 18.3%
South Australia 2,646 605 22.9%
Queensland 3,252 802 24.7%
Western Australia 1,963 445 22.7%
Tasmania 975 172 17.6%
Northern Territory 134 39 29.1%
A. C. T. 285 117 41.1%

Total 23,414 7,266 31.0%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

the key processing establishments than it does of the more inclusive
group of all Delfin establishments.

The above data indicated that Sydney has a nationwide nodal
region. Corporate CAO's in the city are linked by the decision-making
function to a large number of processing and other establishments
throughout Australia. The size and number of nationally operating
companies headquartered in Sydney strengthens its broad areal impact
because they control so many of the key major processing units. The
city's role in New South Wales is pronounced as the companies control
half of all the Delfin establishments in the state. This dominance is
not the case for the capital cities in other states except for Melbourne

in Victoria.

81

It is concluded from these data that Sydney is a decision-
making center as hypothesized. There is the strong presence of the
key central administrative offices in the city and they, in turn, oper-
ate throughout a nodal region of nationwide extent. Thus, Sydney is a
national decision-making center. This conclusion is arrived at under
a strict interpretation of the location of top level decision-making.
It would be even more warranted under moderate and broad interpretations.
However, the data also indicate that Sydney does not completely dominate
the Australian scene. The percentages of companies, assets, employees,
and establishments are such that other cities have an opportunity to

rival Sydney's role. Melbourne does just that.

CHAPTER IV
MELBOURNE: COMPETITOR FOR HEAD OFFICE LOCATION

Melbourne is the principal rival of Sydney for the location
of central administrative offices and economic decisionJmaking in
Australia. The rivalry commenced from its days as a port of entry for
the Victorian goldfields rush of the 1850's. Momentum increased through
the latter part of the nineteenth century until Melbourne exceeded
Sydney in size and attraction for people and corporations having econ-
omic power. Sydney regained its position of most populous city in
1902, but there has been strong economic competition between these two
cities ever since.

. . . but its wider influence, like that of Sydney, extends to
the State boundary and beyond. From the time of the gold rushes,
when a vast influx of capital and population marked a new era,
the city has been the financial and administrative centre for
many of Australia's larger industrial, commercial, pastoral and
mining organizations. Such factors, while not accounting for
all of Melbourne's greatness, have undoubtedly added to its
prestige. (Robinson, 1960, 133)

Unlike the result in many other nations, where a single large primate
city has emerged, Melbourne has succeeded in staying close to Sydney

in population size. It had 2,250,000 persons at the 1966 census, only

a quarter million less than Sydney. Both are far larger than any other
Australian city, the metropolitan populations of third and fourth ranked
Adelaide and Brisbane being about 725,000 (Yearbook of Australia, 1968,

125).

82

83

At the time of federation in 1901, Melbourne politicians,
businessmen, and others of influence succeeded in having their city
named as temporary capital of the Commonwealth until the permanent site
could be chosen and a new capital built. Although they were not strong
enough to have Melbourne selected as the permanent seat of government,
their strength was sufficient to deny this privilege to their rivals in
Sydney or any other state capital. Thus, the stage was set even then
for competition for economic leadership between Sydney and Melbourne.
The latter had the temporary advantage of being the interim seat of
national government. Conservative merchants, daring mining entrepren—
eurs, politicians, statesmen, and other leaders have since created a
nerve center for the guidance of Melbourne, Victorian, and Australian
economic activities (Figure 8).

Melbourne completely dominates the small state of Victoria
having two-thirds of its population. Geelong, with only 92,000, is the
second largest urban area. It is just fifty miles southwest of the
metropolis. Melbourne has for many years had strong connections with
the southern part of New South Wales. The Riverina is closer to this
city than to Sydney and is connected by the Victorian broad gauge rail-
roads that extend across the Murray River border. Melbourne also has
strong economic ties with the northern ports of Tasmania which are less
oriented to Hobart lying at the southern end of this small island state.
The wealth from her own rich resources as well as other states have
made Victoria's capital a center for decision-making by private domestic

and foreign firms and government organizations.

84

 

Figure 8. Melbourne central business district. Exhibition
Hall, the former temporary Parliament House for the Commonwealth Govern-
ment, is in the right middle ground. The financial and office district
has been along Collins St. but is now expanding into other parts of the
city.

S Shell Australia

B Broken Hill Proprietary Company

NML Site of new National Mutual Life Ass'n.

SE State Electricity Commission (Victoria).

ICI Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zea-
an .

CC Commonwealth Center (Gov't. offices).

EH Exhibition Hall

C Collins House

(Photo courtesy of Australian News and Information Bureau.)

85

As was done for Sydney, the analysis of Melbourne's CAO's
and decision-making role starts with a broad interpretation, including
foreign and Commonwealth enterprises. Then, the substantial effect of
foreign firms is subtracted under a moderate interpretation. The posi-
tive effect of the Commonwealth Government operating through Melbourne
head offices is examined under this interpretation before being sub-

tracted under a strict interpretation.

The Corporate Sector in Melbourne

 

Headquarters and Assets
in Industry Groupe

 

 

An even third of Australia's major enterprises have their
head offices in this southern capital city (Table 17, Column C). All
statistics on head office totals are less than for Sydney which are all
in the 43-48 per cent range (See Table 7 for Sydney). The manufacturing
sector of the Delfin list is more strongly represented in Melbourne
than is the primary and tertiary. Melbourne's metropolitan area has
19 per cent of the Australian population. The percentage of manufact-
uring head offices is double the population figure, while the primary
and tertiary share is only half again as large.

The best evidence of Melbourne's economic significance
becomes most apparent in the assets columns (Table 17, Columns 0 and E).
Half of all the assets of Australia's top manufacturing firms are con-
trolled from here as is an even higher percentage of the durable goods
sub-sector. Although just over a third of the primary and tertiary
sector is controlled from this city, its $10,769 million are nearly

double the actual manufacturing assets.

86

 

.umamwo :wCFao “mop Ease aapwaEau "musaam

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rn.ma oaa.amm Nm.mm mma.m_w Nem «om mom mcsaaapmz raga»
xe.mm mmm.mmm Rm.mm moe.opm Emm or— Noe xsampsmplxsaEwsa
xa.ma NFm.mmm NN.Qm mmo.m w emm mmP oom mawsapaae:caz PF<
Em.ma mom.mmF xm.oa oPm.N a xwm FCF omm macaw apaasaoiaaz
ew.ma oFN.wN_ Em.am men.m m xmm Kw omm macaw aPaasao
marsauuaeacaz
w a w o u m <
sapaam sapuam :aF_FFz sapaam .
ma ama saaEaz ea ama .m . ea ama sanEaz a co
-ucaasaa -pcaasma -gaaasaa sew—mo sapaam XspmaacH
Fauah

mcsaan—az Ease
amFFaspaau

maaxaFaEm

acsaaa_mz Ease
EOPFaspcou

mummm<

acsaaEFaz cw
mmuvmwo new:

 

 

ma mamzaFaEm ace .mummma .maawmma cam;

.sauaam xsumaacw

”maawwma aaa; masaanpaz new: mmwcaaEaa cmmpmo .n— mpaap

87

Melbourne has a very strong share of companies in the motor
vehicle assembly and rubber and plastics groups. It also has about
half the companies in four other manufacturing groups: metal building
supplies, other fabricated metals, industrial chemicals, and textile
mills, plus half the investment banking and money market operators
(Table 18, Part A). Like Sydney, Melbourne has 60 per cent or more of
the assets in nine industries. But there is an almost complete reversal
of sector dominance by the two cities. The latter is strongly entrenched
in manufacturing while the former is more oriented towards the tertiary
industries. They split the primary groups with Melbourne strongest in
mining and Sydney in agriculture, and to a less extent, wool brokering.
Although percentages of assets or companies do not draw attention to
them, there are three other groups which must be mentioned as being
important in Melbourne because of their actual amount of capital. They
are: banks with $5,385 million, insurance with $1,407 million, and
utilities with $1,016 million.

A definite weakness in industry group leadership is evidenced
for the primary and tertiary sector (Table 18, Part B). Melbourne is
weakest in agricultural and pastoral production and distribution meas-
ures, having $22 million, or just 7 per cent of group assets. The other
groups have proportions of companies or assets which are below or
roughly equal to the metropolitan share of population. Only three of

these groups are from the manufacturing sector.

Table 18.

88

Melbourne by companies and/or

assets.

Industry groups with strong or weak representation in

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Percentage
Proportion
Group . of Group
of Companies Assets
PART A. Strong Representation
Primary Iron & Steel 2/7 81%
Motor Vehicle Assembly 6/9 80%
Metal Bldg Supplies & Equip lO/20 69%
Other Fabricated Metal Prods 20/41 45%
Industrial Chemicals lO/21 73%
Rubber & Plastic Products 7/9 74%
Textile Mills & Apparel Prods 21/38 62%
Packaging 6/14 70%
Mining 9/25 73%
Investment Banks, Money Market 5/10 60%
PART B. Weak Representation

Heavy General Engineering 4/15 31%
Other Chems, Fert, Pharmc 6/35 12%
Food and Drink 25/82 23%
Agricultural & Pastoral Prod 2/14 7%
W001 Selling Brokers & Agents 3/16 12%
Building & Construction 7/25 16%
Other Finance 4/35 18%
Railways, Government 2/7 28%
Utilities, Elec, Gas, & Comm 3/20 37%
Vehicle Distribution 6/25 18%
Other Goods & Services 5/25 22%
Investment & Holding Co's 8/20 22%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

89

Big Companies, Abbreviated Names

 

The thirty-one companies that are listed in the top Echelons
of assets for Melbourne more strongly represent the manufacturing sector
than was true for their counterparts in Sydney (Table 19 and see Table 9
for Sydney). Many of these giants are well known to Australians by
their initials. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP) is the
nation's iron and steel monopoly and leads the list of all industrials
(see Figure 8). Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zea-
land (ICIANZ) and Shell Australia Securities, are the respective leaders
in the industrial chemicals and petroleum refining and marketing groups.
Important as these top manufacturers are, the banks, insurance firms,
and two state owned authorities dominate the First Echelon. Manufactur-
ers are better represented in the next Echelon. Several are industry
leaders including General Motors-Holden's (GM-H) and Ford Motor Company
of Australia in motor vehicle assembly; Australian Consolidated Indust-
ries (ACI) in packaging; Australian Paper Manufacturers (APM) in pump
and paper; Alcoa and Comalco in aluminium refining; Dunlop in rubber and
plastics; and Carlton and United Breweries (C & UB). Three more petro-
leum refiners, British Petroleum (BP), Mobil Oil, and H. C. Sleigh,
complete the list of big manufacturers. Australia's largest mining
house, Conzinc Riotinto of Australia (CRA), heads the Second Echelon in
assets. ,

No Commonwealth Government statutory authorities are found
among the large companies headquartered in Melbourne. Four State Govern-
ment entities are, however, including the largest utility in Australia,

the State Electricity Commission of Victoria; and the largest state

90

Table 19. Melbourne based companies by assets echelons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Echelon and Co's in Assets Industry Gov't No. of
Company Name Echelon S M. Group For'n Empl.
Rde in
I Echelon > $300 M. TOP 128
Aust. 8 New Zealand Bank 3 1,874 Banking UK 9.536
Nat'l Bank of Australasia 5 1,157 Banking 7,111
State Savings Bank Victoria 6 979 Banking Vict 4,001
State Electricity Comm'n 7 878 Utility Vict 22.477
Broken Hill Proprietary Co 8 870 Prmy Iron 48,191
Commercial Bank of Aust 10 778 Banking 5,861
English, Scottish 8 Aust Bank 12 604 Banking UK 4,841
Victorian Railways 15 424 Railways Vict 28,254
Aust. Temperance a General 16 422 Insurance 1,737
Nat'l Mutual Life Ass'n 17 412 Insurance 3,000
Colonial Mutual Life Society 19 368 Insurance 3,851
I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd. 20 364 Indl Chem UK 11,000
Shell Aust. Securities .El. 313 Petr Ref UK 6.315
Sub Total > $300 M. 13/23 9,437 156,175
11 Echelon $100-299 M.
Conzinc Riotinto of Aust 24 299 Mining UK 4,470
General Motors-Holden's 26 268 Motor Veh US 20.958
British Petroleum Co of Aust 31 207 Petr Ref UK 4,027
Mobil Oil Australia 38 174 Petr Ref US 2,600
Myer Emporium 42 167 Retail 21.205
Aust. Consolidated Ind 44 162 Packaging 16,000
Ford Motor Co. of Australia 47 156 Motor Veh US 7,850
G.M. Acceptance Corp. Aust 50 146 Other Fin US 394
C.J. Coles a C0 51 146 Retail 21,000
Aust. Paper Manufacturers 53 133 Pulp Paper 5.800
Alcoa of Australia 57 125 Pmry NoFe US 1,250
Ansett Transport Industries 58 120 Transport 10,343
H. C. Sleigh 59 115 Petr Mktg 5,505
Comalco Industries 60 114 Pmry NoFe US 2,175
Gas a Fuel Corp. of Vict 64 108 Utility Vict 3,786
Dunlop Rubber Australia 66 106 Rubber 13,000
Carlton & United Breweries 68 104 Beer 3,260
ESANDA 70 103 Other Fin UK nza
Sub Total $100-299 M. 18/47 2.752 143.623
Cumulative > $100 M. 31/70 12,189 299,798
III Echelon $50-99 M. 22/58 1.420 73,979
Cumulative > $50 M. 53/128 13.609 373.777
IV Echelon $30-49 M. 16/48 609 29.979
V Echelon < $30 M. 235/731 2,204 160,694
Total Melbourne Companies 304/907 16,422 564,440

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

91

savings bank. Markedly different from the list of Sydney's top Echelons
is the number of foreign controlled firms operating through Melbourne
head offices. In the First Echelon are the top placed Australian and
New Zealand Bank (ANZ), and the English Scottish and Australian Bank

(ES and A), ICIANZ, and Shell. Nine more are in the next Echelon for a
total of thirteen as compared to only four in Sydney, all of which are
in the Second Echelon. Melbourne's foreign enterprises control nearly
40 per cent of the $12,000 million assets of that city's large companies.

Melbourne has twenty-two medium-sized firms. Together with
the above large companies, two-thirds of the Delfin industry groups are
represented by Melbourne's share of the TOP 128. Three Commonwealth
transportation authorities are in this Third Echelon: The Commonwealth
Railways, Australian National Airlines, and the Australian Coastal
Shipping commission. The investment banking and money market group has
two firms. Australian United Corporation and Capel Court Securities are
associated with the nation's leading share broker houses, Ian Potter and
Company, and J. B. Were and Son respectively. These brokers, through
their underwriting activities, are two of the main reasons Melbourne
has been called the "Financial Capital" of Australia. How appropriate
this term is will be seen in a later part of the study.

In summary, Melbourne's and Sydney's almost identical number
of large and medium sized companies have roughly four-fifths of their
respective city's Delfin assets. The actual amounts are $2,000 million
different because of Sydney's larger total Delfin assets (Figure 9).
Melbourne's leading firms are rather evenly split between manufacturing

and primary and tertiary. Sydney's leaders are much more strongly

92

 

Companies in TOP 128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 29) 490
///7¢
/ / Total

Sydney (333% 415 Sydney
/37/ 304 1“"

Melbourne Z§,/‘ Melbourne

Assets in TOP 128 City Total

S M. O 5, 000 10, 000 15,000 20,000

 

 

Wm
Melbourne ////////,,§),3,§93,//// “6,422

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Sydney and Melbourne companies and assets in TOP 128.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

represented in the latter with thirty-six firms to twenty in manufact-
uring. In the lower two Echelons, Melbourne companies have less in

all measures than their Sydney counterparts (Table 19, and see Table 9
for Sydney). They are very diverse in their economic activities, being
found in all industry groups except among the large banks and govern-

ment railways.

Another Half-Million Employees

 

Although Melbourne has fewer companies on the Delfin list
than Sydney, and we have seen Sydney's greater assets, it is in employ-
ment that Melbourne achieves parity. The disclosed work forces con-
trolled from Melbourne and Sydney are both about 560,000. Internally,
their sector components show strong contrasts (Figure 10 A). In actual

number of workers, Melbourne has 108,000 more in manufacturing than in

93

 

.pmameo :ee_ao eom— Ease aaeeaEau "maszam
.acsaoa—az aca macaam Ease awFFospcou amazaeasw acaaEaa ceeeao .op msamee
www.mmm ea_.mmo mom.emm._
maazaeaEm maa>d_aEm mamaapaEm
E228 ace bests aEsBoeeEez 5:3 :33

 

             

em.—

Ne.mm
zacaxm

   

&¢.w¢

acsaoaea: wcsson

 

sapowm aspmaace ha aca Fawoe
mmepea sagpo aca .acsaaE—az .zaEUAm

Ease caFFaspcaa mmaaa—aEw ea mamapcaasma .m o_

we.~¢

Fm:

 

 

 

 

asaeusae aca asaEesa Rom maesauaaeaaaz

       
   

Fmpoh ooo.¢mm ooo

Fence ooo.omm ooo.¢mm ooo.mem

 
 

masaaEFaz ace hacaxm ce aasausaacaaa; maecaaEaa Ewe—mo ea awazapaEm

masaaaeaz

amcaxm

.< o—

 

 

94

primary and tertiary. Sydney's small 8,000 difference is in favor of '
the latter sector. With equal percentages of all Delfin employees,
Melbourne has 9 per cent more of all manufacturing workers, while Sydney
has a similar higher share of all primary and tertiary persons (Figure
10 8).

Melbourne has more Major Employers than does Sydney, thirty-
three compared to twenty-six (Table 20 and see Table 10 for Sydney).
They control 61 per cent of Melbourne's Delfin workers. The Broken Hill
Proprietary Company is the largest private employer in the nation with
1 per cent of the total Australian work force. It has major facilities
and staffs in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western
Australia. The large staffs of the Victorian Railways and the State
Electricity Commission are essentially within Victoria. Myers and
Coles, together with Sydney-based Woolworths and David Jones, are the
four great retailers in Australia. All are major tertiary industry
employers. Nineteen manufacturers are found in Table 20, including the
top positioned BHP. They displace many of the banks and other tertiary
firms with large assets to lower positions on the list. Three small
companies, Prestige (clothing manufacturer), Cox Brothers (department
stores), and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways are represented
with work forces comparable in size with two assets-rich banks. Nine
of Melbourne's First and Second Echelon companies are not on this list
of Major Employers (See Table 19).

The fifty-nine firms in the tables of Melbourne's and Sydney's
Major Employers control 46 per cent of all Delfin workers, and some

12 per cent of the national work force. It should be recalled that it

95

 

 

 

 

Table 20. Melbourne based Major Employers. (Delfin companies with
more than 4,000 employees.)
Rank in
No.0f . Assets
Company Empls. S84C803 Mfg Size
1. Broken Hill Proprietary 48,191 1 M I
2. Victorian Railways 28,254 3 I
3. State Electricity Comm. 22,477 6 I
4. Myer Emporium 21,200 7 II
5. G. J. Coles and Co. 21,000 8 II
6. General Motors-Holden's 20,958 9 M II
7. Aust. Consolidated Ind. 16,000 11 M II
8. Dunlop Rubber Aust. 13,000 13 M II
9. I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd. 11,000 16 M I
10. Ansett Transport Ind. 10,343 17 II
11. Aust. & New Zealand Bank 9,536 21 I
12. Ford Motor Co of Aust. 7,850 26 M II
13. Repco 7,772 27 M III
14. Felt & Textiles of Aust. 7,710 29 M III
15. Nat'l Bank of Australasia 7,111 31 I
16. Shell Aust. Securities 6,315 35 M I
17. Australian Nat'l Airlines 6,263 36 III
18. Olympic Consolidated Ind 6,200 37 M III
19. Humes 5,983 38 M III
20. Electronic Industries 5,976 39 M III
21. McPherson's 5,938 40 M III
22. Commercial Bank of Aust. 5,861 41 I
23. Aust. Paper Manufacturers 5,800 43 M II
24. H. C. Sleigh 5,505 46 M II
25. E. S. & A. Bank 4,841 53 I
26. Melb & Metro. Tramways 4,614 56 V
27. Associated Pulp & Paper 4,580 57 M III
28. Conzinc Riotinto of Aust. 4,470 59 II
29. Cox Brothers (Aust.) 4,389 60 IV
30. Prestige 4,200 62 M V
31. British Petroleum 4,027 65 M II
32. Int'l Harvester Co of Aust 4,011 66 M III
33. State Savings Bank Vict 4,001 67 I
Total 345 ,376 19 MFG
Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

96

took just the twenty-three First Echelon giants to control more than
half of the Delfin assets. However, only seventeen of those big money
enterprises are on the big employer lists.

The three measures evidenced through head office control,
viz., number of companies, assets, and employees, show Melbourne to
have a strong decision-making function (See Table 17). Number of em-
ployees is her strong suit, but all three indices are more than one-
and-a-half to two times the city's 19 per cent share of the national
p0pulation. Melbourne can be characterized as the site of head offices
for manufacturing firms with large assets and work forces more so than
Sydney. Every Delfin industry group is represented. The city ranks
first or second only to Sydney in all groups and by all measures except
one. Adelaide is second in both assets and employees in the wool
selling brokers and agents group.

Under the foregoing broad interpretation, Melbourne is head-
quarters for both private domestic and foreign firms, and Commonwealth
and State enterprises. The decision-making function attributable to
overseas companies is more pronounced in Victoria's capital than in
Sydney. A moderate interpretation results in a substantial alteration
to Melbourne's decision-making role.

Multi-National Firms With Head Offices
for Australia in Melbourne

 

 

Over a third of the Delfin assets in Melbourne are controlled
by foreign companies. Two British banking houses, the ANZ Bank and
ES and A Bank, have $2,500 million of the city's $5,800 million over-

seas assets. Together with the other foreign firms in the First and

97

Second Echelon they control $4,700 million (See Table 19). We have
already seen that a number of these firms are industry leaders, such as
ICIANZ, Shell Australian, Conzinc Riotinto of Australia, and Alcoa of
Australia. General Motors-Holden's, the leading auto maker, moved its
head office from Adelaide to Melbourne when a large new factory was
built during World War II. Adelaide was the location of the original
Holden operations and the site of the first GM-H assembly plant. Both
this company's current head office and that of the Ford Motor Company
of Australia are at their principal factories unlike most of the other
CAO's which are in the central business district. General Motors Accept-
ance Corporation, a hire purchase subsidiary of its American parent, has
its Australian head office in Melbourne's financial district rather than
in association with the GM-H head office at the Port Melbourne plant.
In contrast, ESANDA, the hire purchase arm of ES and A Bank, is admin-
istered from the same building in Collins Street.

In all Echelons, there are eighty-five foreign head offices in
Melbourne, 28 per cent of that city's Delfin list. They control about
a quarter of the work force. Ten companies are among the Major Employers
(See Table 20). GM-H with 21,000 is the largest foreign employer rank-
ing ninth among all Delfin firms.

Melbourne's manufacturing sector has sixty-nine enterprises.
More than half the companies, the assets, and the employees in seven of
Melbourne's major manufacturing groups are foreign controlled. They are:

Primary non-ferrous metals

Farm, construction, and other equipment

Motor vehicle assembly

Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies
Petroleum refining and marketing

98

Industrial chemicals

Miscellaneous products
In the primary and tertiary sector, Melbourne's mining, wool selling
brokers, and other finance groups have more than half of their assets
directed from overseas. The two British banks have the biggest share
of foreign assets, nearly as much as the sixty-nine manufacturers
combined.

United Kingdom enterprises have forty Delfin head offices in
Melbourne, whereas the United States has thirty-three, West Germany
five, Sweden four, Canada two, and the Netherlands one. Petroleum
refining, chemicals, mining, and banking groups are all dominated by
one or two British firms each. Americans have large investments and
control in auto making, aluminium refining, petroleum refining, and
hire purchase. The electrical machinery and equipment group is domi-
nated by the Netherlands' Electronics Industries. This group also has
three Swedish, one West German, two British, and one American company.
The United Kingdom firms have assets of $4,234 million compared to the
$1,382 million for the American interests, and a combined $218 million
for the other four countries. Employees are more nearly equal for the
first two nations. The United Kingdom firms controlled 165,000 and
the Americans employed 98,000.

Exerting their powerful influence in a few key basic indus-
tries and in banking, the thirteen largest foreign companies, all
British and American, play a significant role in the decision-making
that emanates from or flows through Melbourne. However, in a moderate

interpretation their impact and that of the smaller foreign firms is

99

subtracted from Melbourne's total decision-making role and placed at
parent company head offices overseas. Such a subtraction substantially

reduces the presence of this function in Melbourne.

Head Assets Empls.

Offices S M. #
Total Melbourne 304 $16,422 564,000
Foreign Controlled - 85 - 5,835 -13l,OOO
Melbourne Domestic 219 $10,587 433,000
(Sydney Domestic) 265 $16,796 401,500

It is in the wealth of these companies that they markedly alter Mel-
bourne's importance vis-a-vis Sydney.

Commonwealth enterprises also have a role in the assessment
of Melbourne's decision-making function. Under a moderate interpreta-
tion they add to the city. Under a strict interpretation they are

subtracted leaving just State Government and private domestic companies.

The Government Sector in Melbourne

 

Commonwealth

 

When the Commonwealth of Australia came into being in 1901,
Melbourne became the temporary seat of government for the new nation.
For the next quarter century the Federal Parliament and ministerial
departments were located there. In 1927 Parliament met for the first
time in Canberra, the fledgling permanent capital city. In the same
year eight Federal departments were transferred from Melbourne. After

a long delay, a renewed exodus began in 1959. By 1966, eighteen of the

100

twenty-five ministries were headquartered in Canberra, as well as
numerous lower level government organizations. However, Melbourne
retained some legacy from its former "temporary" role. The head
offices of seven departments and eighteen organizations remained in
Melbourne (Table 21). The city continues as the site of the High Court
of Australia.

From a strictly economic standpoint, two of the departments
are paramount, those of the Postmaster-General and Labour and National
Service. Four others are directly involved in economic activities and
services: Civil Aviation, Shipping and Transport, Supply, and Works.
Only Repatriation is more of a social service, although it has some
limited economic influence. Of these departments, only the assets
for the Postmaster-General Department are available on a basis compar-

able with Delfin Digest data.

 

The Postmaster-General's Department was not included in the

Delfin Digest because it is a department rather than statutory agency

 

of the government. However, it is the sole provider of postal, tele»
phone, and telegraph services. It owns and operates the transmitters
and other equipment for the radio and television services of the
Australian Broadcasting Commission. When measured by the indices used
for the Delfin companies, the department is a major economic force.

It had assets of $1,844 million in 1966, which would rank it fourth,
just below the Reserve Bank of Australia if that government organiza-

tion had also been listed (Yearbook of Australia, 1968, 440). The

 

Postmaster-General's Department is the largest employer unit, government

or private, in the nation. Its full time staff of 99,000 is augmented

Table 21. Commonwealth government organizations with head offices in

Melbourne in 1966.

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Employeesa Minister
Ministerial Departments 1966-67 Responsible
Civil Aviation 6,661
Labour and National Service 2,363
Postmaster—General 98,886
Repatriation 9,749
Shipping and Transport 854
Works 13,798
Supply 9,424
Not Under Public Service Act 12,418
Sub-Total 154,143
Other Organizations
Aust. National Airlines Comm'n 5,775 Civil Aviation
Coastal Shipping Commission 1,785 Shipping, Transp.
Commonwealth Railways 3,232 Shipping, Transp.
Aust. Transport Advisory Council n/a Shipping, Transp.
Commw. Serum Laboratories Comm'n 903 Health
Commw. Scientific and Industrial . . .
Research Organization (CSIRO) 5’836 Prime Minister
Commw. Grants Commission n/a Prime Minister
Aust. Broadcasting Control Bd 127 Postmaster-Gen'l
Commw. Bureau of Meteorology n/a Interior
Public Service Arbitrator n/a Labour
River Murray Commission n/a National Devpmt.
Nat'l Coal Res. Advisory Comm'n. n/a National Devpmt.
Aust. Apple & Pear Board n/a Primary Industry
Aust. Canned Fruits Board n/a Primary Industry
Aust. Dairy Produce Board n/a Primary Industry
Aust. Dried Fruits Control Bd n/a Primary Industry
Aust. Wheat Board n/a Primary Industry
Aust. Wool Board nga Primary Industry
' Sub-Total 17,658
TOTAL 171,801

 

aEmployees are those listed under the Public Service Act
except for 12,418 in Supply under other Acts.

Source: Commonwealth of Australia Directory,_l966, and employment

 

fromTAustralTa in Facts andTFigures, No. 99, Sept., 1968.

102

by an additional 14,000 full and part time persons Operating under

contract (Yearbook of Australia, 1968, 438).

 

Labour and National Service is important because of its
impact on the national work force rather than by having large assets
or number of employees. This influence is exercised through the Common-
wealth Employment Service, labour statistics, conciliation and arbitra-
tion in industrial disputes, industrial training, and other services
related to employment numbers, wages, and conditions. The departments
of Civil Aviation, Shipping and Transport, and Works, exercise policy
functions, provide services, and carry out operations in the fields of
aviation, shipping and ports, road and rail, and major governmental
construction activities. Supply is concerned with the provision of
governmental equipment and supplies, especially in the munitions and
defense areas. Each is an important channel of government expenditures
on capital facilities and equipment such as aerodromes, navigational
aids, shipbuilding, railroads, national highways, federal buildings,
and defense needs. Five of these departments rank as Major Employers
by Delfin criteria (See Table 21).

Four Commonwealth organizations headquartered in Melbourne
are statutory authorities with large enough assets to be included in
the Delfin lists. They include the Australian National Airlines, one
of two internal air services, and the Coastal Shipping Commission which
operates a coastwise service. The Commonwealth Railways operate the
transcontinental line extending from Port Augusta, South Australia
westward to connect with the Western Australian Railways at Kalgoorlie.

Another line extends northward to Alice Springs. It is connected by

103

coordinated rail and road service to Darwin. A short five mile line
connects Canberra to the New South Wales system at Queanbeyan. The
three transportation authorities are all Third Echelon size enterprises,
with the airlines qualifying as a Major Employer. The Commonwealth
Serum Laboratories provide research and production of serums and drugs
for government and private use. The Commonwealth Scientific and Indus-
trial Research Organization (C.S.I.R.O.) was not financially structured
as an autonomous authority in 1966 and so comparable data on assets
were not available for its inclusion in the Delfin list. However, it
is estimated that it would rank in the Third Echelon. With 5,800
employees, the C.S.I.R.O. would also appear as a Major Employer.

Most of the other organizations in Table 21 are regulatory
boards and include the very influencial Wheat and Wool boards as well
as a number of lesser primary industry marketing boards. It is through
the head offices of departments, especially the Postmaster-General's,
Civil Aviation, Works, and Supply; plus the three transport authorities,
and the Wool and Wheat boards, that the Federal Government adds strongly
to the decision-making function headquartered in Melbourne. The 172,000
disclosed employees of Melbourne based Commonwealth organizations are
four times the 41,000 controlled through Sydney head offices. On the
other hand the huge assets of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and
Reserve Bank overshadow the considerable assets of the Postmaster-
General's Department plus the disclosed assets of all other Melbourne
based Commonwealth organizations. These comparisons are true under a
moderate interpretation which also includes the role of State Govern-

ment organizations.

104

Victorian State Government

Victoria is the second smallest state in area, but the second
most populous with 3,200,000 people in 88,000 square miles. A quarter
of the nation's population is in just 3 per cent of its area. Melbourne
is the capital in which the State Government makes the decisions that
affect this compact, populous corner of Australia. The Victorian
Parliament and twenty-one State Ministries are at the tap levels of the
decision-making and executive functions. In addition, there are a
number of large statutory authorities that have major economic impact.
The Victorian Railways, Electricity Commission, and the State Savings
Bank of Victoria, all rank in the First Echelon of assets as did their
Sydney counterparts. The Gas and Fuel Corporation operates statewide
and has the most assets of any Australian gas supplier. The Railways
and the Electricity Commission rank immediately below the Broken Hill
Proprietary Company among Melbourne based Major Employers (in Table 14).
The Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board joins the Savings Bank
near the bottom of that list. The remaining statutory authority

included in the Delfin Digest is the Fourth Echelon State Government

 

Insurance Offices.

The Victorian Government employed 151,000 persons in 1966,
40 per cent of whom worked for the above six authorities. The remaining
personnel were in public works, roads, coal mining, and government
factories; in the social service areas of education, health, police,
welfare, and repatriation; and the general administration offices.
Victoria has a highly centralized population and its State Government

provides services for a much more compact area than is true for New

South
more

units
towns
over

vien

ing

Feds

C0111

105

South Wales. Melbourne dominates the economic activities of its state
more so than does Sydney. There is less decentralization of government
units because of the smaller area and fewer other medium size country
towns. Only three, Geelong, Ballarat, and Bendigo, have populations
over 25,000. They are all within l00 miles of the capital and subser-
vient to it for most state functions.

Thus we find the Commonwealth and State Governments contribut-
ing to Melbourne's ranks of CAO's and its decision-making role. The
Federal units do so on a nationwide scale whereas the State Government
is restricted to a very small area by Australian standards, but which
contains a quarter of the population.

Comparisons of Interpretations of Melbourne's
Decision-Making_Function

Melbourne exhibits a strong presence of CAO's and the decision-
making function under a broad interpretation. This is especially true
when the data for the Postmaster-General's Department are added to the
Delfin measures (Figure ll). In l966 there was l9 per cent of the
Australian population in the metropolitan area. Under a broad inter-
pretation the city had a third of all Delfin head offices. They, in
turn, control 40 per cent of the measured assets and employees. Sub-
tracting the foreign companies in a moderate interpretation reduces the
number of head offices and assets to 24 and 27 per cent respectively.
The further subtraction of the five Commonwealth enterprises in a strict
interpretation has the strongest effect on the percentage of employees.
Ultimate control of almost $8,000 million of Melbourne's assets and

300,000 of its employees in a broad interpretation are assigned overseas

 

0a. fic~ ...C- ~.<.Ll:?w-~. 24:22.2.

106

 

 

.aw_~eum=< to xooneam> mom_ ecu umamfio ewc_mo Noa_ sage uap_asoo "oucaom

.mmowmmo wow; mcgzonpmz scum uwppogucoo mwmzopasw

955538 533558 :m use .3263an acme—:38 33m 5.239; In .3553an 5.38 9:333: mag—05a

.mcgzanwz so» meowumamgagwu:_ uuwgum vcm .mpmgouos .umoga mo mcomwgagEoo

.ucofiscnoa m. Fmgmcmwlmpmmfimoa 23 use 32358 5:8 0533?: 8.032.;

._p wgzmpu

 

    

 

 

 

       

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cmmmgom .u.>ow .3EEou .u.>ou wumum omumweoo ouo>wsa
¢x+3¢m+xew ooooooooooooo nu llllllli1Illll
0 03%.”.wwwmfi.” 0 0000000000000 0 fl
0 “m.”.n.u.u.n.uo..u.u.u.n.u.u.un O WOOWWOOOOOOOOO w W
5m com 5 W7". 88 com. E mfi 83mm
6 no... ........ . ............... 5 l K D 3 H
aumwfiwwwfiwaw.6 n ooooooooo 1umm
8 ”uunuuuunmunmmuummmmu 6 inawm mbofi on mmm 5 i 1.- l. :1
ace umm mmm
v8.5 .1 I: 3230: I. 3.23 53389.35
a.~mmm>oaa2m
:mwwsou mmumwsoo mum>wsa
“v“ Nmmmmmwwwwwwwwwwwwwwmwmmmmw”wwwwwmwmmm“mv
use
umogm ll mpagmuoz m1 1r.uowgum :oFHapmgagwucm
a» mzofibbmz zH mpumm<
cowogom .zssou macaw ovummsca muu>pga
. . . n...u.u.u........... . . . . "nu.............. . . W O PN
umm «cw
395 .w— 3230: .1 T: 375m 53389.35
ammo_aac a<m= co mumzaz e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

and to Canberra in a strict interpretation. The numbers of head offices,
assets, and employees of Australia's largest companies attributable to
Melbourne in a strict interpretation remain considerable. They repre-
sent 22 to 25 per cent of each measure, somewhat more than the metro-
politan share of the national population.

These measures lead to the conclusion that Melbourne is an
important location for top level decision-making in Australia. The
city occupies a challenging position to Sydney in the number of head
offices and control of assets under all interpretations (See Figure 4
for Sydney). Melbourne controls more employees in all cases. Thus.
it is a truly competitive rival of Sydney for this top most economic
function. The nodal region for this southern capital is next delimited
to see if it is of national extent like Sydney's. The spatial analysis
is made under a strict interpretation as was done for Sydney. Similarly
it results in a nodal region for Melbourne determined by the companies
and establishments of private domestic and State Government enterprises

only. Commonwealth and foreign enterprises are not included.

Melbourne's Spatial Impact

The Victorian gold rush of the 1850's was important to the
development of Melbourne as a center of finance and to the growth of
its decision-making importance. Financial houses such as J. B. Were
and Son (Ellis, 1954), and more recently, Ian Potter and Company, have
been influential in the city's growth as a headquarters center. The
Collins House group of companies with roots in the Broken Hill mines

have initiated a number of manufacturing firms with operations in

108

several states wherein they have reinvested the profits from their
mining ventures. The small areal size of Victoria led these and other
Melbourne firms to seek investment opportunities in other states, thus
expanding their spatial influence throughout Australia. Conversely,
Melbourne has attracted the top decision-makers and the head offices of
companies whose main operations are in other states, most notable the

Broken Hill Proprietary Company.

Number of Companies

 

Melbourne has 2l5 private domestic and State Government statu-

tory authorities listed in the Delfin Digest after the foreign and

 

Commonwealth enterprises are excluded (Table 22). The difference
between Melbourne's smaller number of firms and Sydney's 262 is largely
found in the 27 and 72 companies respectively which operate only in one
state. The number of national and regional multi-state companies are
similar for both cities (See Table 12 for Sydney).

The large companies from the TOP 128 list are predominantly
national with the remainder operating only in Victoria or one other
state. Half of Melbourne's large national firms are manufacturers
compared to only a fifth of Sydney's. Leading the list is the Broken
Hill Proprietary Company, the largest manufacturing firm in Australia,
with steel mills, mines, shipbuilding, and other processing and dis-
tribution facilities in all states and the Northern Territory. Austral-
ian Consolidated Industries similarly dominates the packaging industry

with glass and package making factories in all states. Australian

Paper Manufacturers, Dunlop Rubber, Felt and Textiles, Olympic

 

Table 22.

109

Melbourne private domestic companies and state statutory
authorities operating in number of states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Total No. Co's. in Smaller
Establishments in of Co's. TOP l28 Co's.
6 States 77 21 56
5 States & Market

Nationally 27 26

5 States ll - ll
Total National ll5 22 93

4 States l6 - l6
3 States 23 l 22
2 States 34 4 30
Multi-State Reg'l. 73 5 68

1 State and Local 27 3 24
Total 2l5 30 185

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

Consolidated Industries (rubber products), and Humes (building materials)
each have processing plants as well as marketing outlets in all states.
Repco (auto replacement parts), McPhersons (machine tools), Associated
Pulp and Paper Mills, and H. C. Sleigh (petroleum marketing) market
nationally but have processing plants only in Victoria or only a few of
the other states. The other half of Melbourne's twenty-two large
national companies are from the tertiary sector. The National Bank of
Australasia and the Commercial Bank of Australia, three insurance
houses, and Myers and G. J. Coles mirror the number of firms in these

groups which have head offices in Sydney. Melbourne has only three

110

companies from the other finance group compared to Sydney's nine. They
are: The Australian United Corporation, an investment bank associated
with Ian Potter and Company; Capel Court Securities in the short term
money market and associated with the Capel Court Group which is managed
by J. B. Here and Son; and General Credits Holdings which is the hire
purchase affiliate of the Commercial Bank of Australia. Ansett Trans-
port Industries serve most of Australia's larger population centers
through its national and regional airline subsidiaries. This company's
bus and road transport routes also help link the nation together.

The non-national companies from the TOP 128 list represent
seven industry groups. Carlton and United Breweries has its major
brewing and marketing operations in Victoria. Through takeovers it
also has five breweries in Queensland and has expanded into the Northern
Territory with a new facility at Darwin. The Victorian Railways serves
the state and the Riverina district of New South Wales. Three companies
have head offices in Melbourne but have their principal operations in
another state. They are: E. Z. Industries which mines and smelts zinc
in Tasmania, and North Broken Hill and Broken Hill South with mines in
New South Wales. Three state statutory authorities, the State Saving
Bank, the State Electricity Commission, and the Gas and Fuel Corporation
of Victoria, operate only intrastate.

One half of the smaller Melbourne firms that are not in the
TOP l28 operate nationally. Of these, two-thirds are manufacturers
whereas somewhat less than half of the multi-state regional and one
State companies are in the manufacturing groups. Many of the smaller

national companies, like their larger counterparts, have processing

111

plants as well as distribution units in other capital cities and states.
The smaller companies operating in four states usually omit Western
Australia and Tasmania. When operating in only three states, the
second state is usually New South Wales and the third state is either
South Australia or Queensland.

National companies headquartered in Melbourne have 65 per
cent of the assets controlled from that city, somewhat less than the
72 per cent held by like firms in Sydney (Table 23, and see Table 13
for Sydney). Regional multi-state companies have twice the percentage
of Melbourne's assets than their counterparts do in Sydney. This is
largely because the Victorian Railways with $424 million in assets

operates in two states whereas the New South Wales Government Railways

Table 23. Assets by areas of operations of Melbourne based companies.

 

 

 

 

Area of Number of Assets Percentage
Operation Companies $ M. of Assets
National 115 $ 6,794 65+ %
4, 3, or 2
States 73 1,395 13+ %
l State or
Local 27 2,178 21+ %
Total 215 $10,367 100 %

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

is counted as only a one state company. Both cities have about one-
fifth of their assets held by companies which operate only in one state

and locally. In absolute terms, national companies in Sydney control

112

$2,500 million more assets than Melbourne national companies. The
differences between the number of companies and assets of the two cities

is reflected in the processing establishments controlled from each.

Processing Establishments

The number and distribution of processing establishments con-
trolled by Melbourne companies in each state is not very different from
the pattern for Sydney except that each dominates its home state
(Figure 12, and see Figure 5 for Sydney). The contrasts that exist
are expected because of locational proximity. Thus, Melbourne has more
of its establishments in Tasmania and South Australia and less in Queens-
land and the A. C. T. than does Sydney (Table 24). Although absolute

Table 24. The distribution of processing establishments controlled
from Melbourne.

 

 

 

Location of Number of Percentage of
Establishments Units Melbourne Units
New South Wales 262 19.6 %
Victoria 679 50.7 %
South Australia 123 9.2 %
Queensland 113 8.4 %
Western Australia 75 5.6 %
Tasmania 75 5.6 %
Northern Territory 8 .6 %

A. C. T. ____ji .4 %
Melbourne Total 1,340 100.0 %
Delfin Total 4,351

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

113

.mwwgopuwng 8:05;
-wap ucm .mm_copomgwo mmmcwmsm megm>wcz .ummmvo cwe—oo Nom_ soc» cw_vneou "wogaom

 

.mcgsonrwz soc» voF—ogucou
manuscmwpampmm papa» vcm mcwmmmuogg cww—wo mo cowusnwgumwo .N_ mgsmwu

 

and); Du

unnK \ 3n; waDOnamE .730...

thwSIm3u<hmu
dds—.0...

       

thmSImzmtn—mw
OZEmMUOxm

 

“sz02“:

>

 

 

mZMDqum—Z
EOE QmQAOEZOU
mPZmEEm~Am<Hmm Emu—m0

 

 

 

114

numbers are about the same, Melbourne has a slightly higher percentage
of its establishments in New South Wales than Sydney does in Victoria.
These several differences result in 51 per cent of Melbourne controlled
processing establishments being in Victoria compared to 55 per cent of
Sydney's units being in New South Wales the absolute difference is 178.
From another point of view Melbourne has substantial percent-
ages of each state's processing establishments (Table 25). The greatest

Table 25. The number of processing establishments in each state and
percentage of state units controlled from Melbourne.

 

 

 

 

State Processing Controlled Percentage of
Units by Melbourne State Units

New South Wales 1,539 262 17.0 %
Victoria 1,268 679 53.5 %
South Australia 433 123 28.4 %
Queensland 551 113 20.5 %
Western Australia 327 75 22.9 %
Tasmania 167 75 44.9 %
Northern Territory 29 8 27.6 %
A. C. T. ___j§[ ____£i 13.5 %

Total 4,351 1,340 30.8 %

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

relative impact is in Victoria and Tasmania, and the weakest is in the
Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales (Figure 13). However,
because of the large number of establishments in New South Wales it
still has the largest absolute number of units outside of Victoria

controlled from Melbourne.

115

DELFIH PROCESSING
csmuswtm

H.351

SHABPOF

MELBOURNE CONTROL

I f\ .
' \ f?
' .. ‘ .SHABPOF
PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENTS s H {a ,, o F fll l
.fi" ‘5. I

0 500 SHAOF

SHABPHOF

 

Figure 13. The percentage of each state's Delfin processing
establishments controlled from Melbourne.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

 

1l6

Total Number of Establishments

When Delfin processing establishments are combined with
distribution and office units for the figures on total establishments,
Melbourne has a very slight lead on Sydney, 7,332 to 7,266. The rela-
tive similarity is more important than the minor difference. The
distribution of these units among the various states shows two differ-
ences from Sydney's pattern (See Figure 12 for Melbourne and Figure 5
for Sydney). Only 44 per cent of Melbourne controlled establishments
are in Victoria compared with 54 per cent for Sydney in New South Wales.
The bulk of this difference is accounted for by Melbourne having 23 per
cent of its total establishments in New South Wales as opposed to Syd-
ney having only 16 per cent of its establishments in Victoria.

In terms of percentages of total state units, Melbourne has
from 21 to 36 per cent of the Delfin establish ments in other states
and territories (Table 26). These are quite comparable to the same
statistics for Sydney. The notable exception is the 36 per cent for
Tasmania, a share four times greater than is controlled from Hobart in
that state (Figure 14). Melbourne's share of the national total for
all establishments (31.3 per cent) is almost identical with its share
of the total processing units alone (30.8 per cent). The city does not
exhibit the stronger share of processing units that was shown for
Sydney, a puzzling fact when it is recalled that Melbourne has a greater
share of the head offices of manufacturing firms.

Having nearly a third of all Delfin establishments distributed
throughout the nation provides strong evidence of the national impact

of decisions made in head offices in Melbourne. Through the CAO's and

117

Table 26. The number of total establishments in each state and the
percentage of state units controlled from Melbourne.

 

 

 

 

Total Controlled Percentage of
Units by Melbourne State Units
New South Wales 7,869 1,666 21.1 %
Victoria 6,280 3,219 51.3 %
South Australia 2,646 645 24.4 %
Queensland 3,252 860 26.4 %
Western Australia 1,963 490 25.0 %
Tasmania 975 353 36.2 %
Northern Territory 134 29 21.6 %
A. C. T. __3¥¥i ___231 24.6 %
Total 23,414 7,332 31.3 %

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

decision-making function this city, like Sydney, has a nationwide nodal
region. Melbourne is the decision-making center for Victoria. The
Delfin data show Melbourne is a national rival of Sydney for economic
decision-making, although it ranks second in the number of national
companies and assets of these wide ranging firms. Melbourne most also
take second place in the number of Delfin processing establishments, by
some 5 per cent, or 230 units. The cities are equal in total Delfin
establishments, each having about 7,300 units. Together they make up
nearly two-thirds of the national total. From the foregoing analysis
it is concluded that Melbourne is a national decision-making center.
Like Sydney this conclusion is made under a strict interpretation. A
broad interpretation would substantially increase the measures of Mel-

bourne's national importance through the many nationwide establishments

118

TOTAL DELHI
ESTABLISMNTS

l E 23.4111

3%

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS .s a "55' o F -: .
MELBOURNE CONTROL M‘agoume S " ' 3 ° F

C
o 500 .

L V
‘ é
Np SHABPHOF

 

Figure 14. The percentage of each state's total Delfin estab-
lishments controlled from Melbourne.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

 

 

119

of foreign and Commonwealth enterprises controlled from head offices
in that city. However, such an increase would not be sufficient to
displace Sydney from its premier position under the same interpretation.
A strict interpretation allows Canberra's decision-making
role to be more accurately measured. For this city the analysis of
Commonwealth organizations and employees augments the rather limited

Delfin Digest data available for the nation's young capital.

CHAPTER V
CANBERRA: THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL

Development and the Private Sector

Canberra, the youngest of Australia's major cities, came into
being a dozen years after federation. The Federal Parliament moved
from its temporary Melbourne location to sit for the first time in the
new Provisional Federal Parliament House in Canberra in 1927. For a
score of years the young capital grew at a slow pace, from 5,000 resi-
dents in 1927 to 15,000 by 1947. Following World War II, the city's
development quickened, population increase was rapid, and the city
received its due attention from its major occupant, the Commonwealth
Government. Purpose, planning, and resources were directed towards
providing the buildings, people, and infrastructure to receive govern-
ment departments being moved from Melbourne to Canberra. In 1967
Canberra attained a population of 100,000. Government and construction
were the two major employers. Today Canberra is truly the nation's
capital. New buildings are under construction in satellite towns to
house increasing residential growth as well as to decentralize govern-
ment offices from the central Parliament triangle (Figure 15). Such
suburbanization emphasizes how much Canberra has become the focal point

of government, and especially the growth of the Federal Government.

120

121

 

Figure 15. Canberra,the capital of Australia. Parliament House
is to the right of Lake Burley Griffin. The central business district and
City Circle are in the lower middle. Most government department head
offices are in or close by Parliament Triangle, two sides of which bridge
the lake.

(Photo courtesy Australian News and Information Bureau.)

122

As measured by the Delfin Digest data, Canberra's decision-

 

making role is rather minimal. Only four Delfin companies have head

offices here (Table 27). Laporte is a British owned producer of

Table 27. Canberra Delfin companies.

 

 

 

Assets Number of

Company Industry $ M. Employees
Laporte Australiaa Indl Chem 15 330
A.C.T. Electric Authorityb Utility 12 n/a
J. B. Young Holdings Retail 5 300
Ravenshoe Tin Dredging Mining 2 95
Total $34 725

 

EA British owned firm.
A Commonwealth Statutory Authority.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

titanium oxides with its main plant at Botany Bay near Sydney. The
Australian Capital Territory Elec ric Authority provides electricity
distribution for the capital. J. B. Young operates several retail
department stores and supermarkets in Canberra and Queanbeyan. Raven-
shoe has one tin mine in northern Queensland. This short list illus-
trates that Australian and overseas businessmen have not been overly
eager to move to or to establish new head offices in the nation's
capital. Construction, retailing, banking, insurance, and almost all
other aspects of private economic activity in the daily lives of Can-
berrans, are controlled at the top level by Sydney and Melbourne based
companies. Canberra has only small scale private sector decision:

making.

123

The lack of statistics on Commonwealth assets controlled by
most departments and organizations headquartered in Canberra hinders a
comparison of the capital with Sydney and Melbourne under a broad inter-
pretation. Statistics are available on Commonwealth revenues and
expenditures but not generally organized by departmental totals. The

counterpart statistics for many of the companies in the Delfin Digest

 

are not available, and thus make comparisons impossible. The number of
departments and organizations and their employees are the best indicators
available to measure the governmental units against companies in the
Delfin list. They are used first in a broad interpretation.

Canberra's Decision-Making Role
Under a Broad Interpretation

 

 

It has already been seen that the four Delfin companies head-

quartered in Canberra have very minimal economic and spatial impact,
even under a broad interpretation. They will not be drawn into the
following analysis of the government's role in Canberra.

It is through the public sector, in the form of the Common-
wealth Government, that Canberra evidences strength of economic as well
as political decision-making. Parliament House must be considered as
the single most important decision-making establishment in Australia.
The laws of the land are debated and enacted by Federal Parliament here,
not in one of the state capital cities. Additionally, there is a large
body of Federal Government organizations including departments, commis-
sions, councils, boards, and agencies that assist in the formulation of
proposed laws. These units are charged with the duty of interpreting

and executing the laws once passed, and have considerable policy-making

124

functions within the broad frameworks and wordings of the various acts

and laws as set down by Parliament.

Commonwealth Organizations

 

Ministerial Departments are the focal points of much decision-
making. They have not yet all been moved to Canberra from their tempor-
ary location in Melbourne as was seen in the discussion of that city.

An early nucleus of key departments was transferred in 1927, the same
year Parliament moved to the new capital. After a thirty-year delay
transferrals of other departments began again in 1959 with the four
defense related departments. Nineteen of the twenty-six departments
were headquartered in Canberra in 1966 (Table 28).1

More important than assets, revenues, expenditures, employees,
or number of head offices is the nationwide impact of the statutes
Federal departments help formulate and implement. The departments are
also generators of important decisions and policies in their own right
that do not become formalized as Federal Acts. Several of these units
have strong, direct impact on economic activity. Others are more poli-
tical or social in their services, although having some economic effect
as well. The former would include the departments of the Prime Minister,
Treasurer, Trade and Industry, Customs and Excise, National Development,

Primary Industry, Immigration, and Interior. It is worth noting that

 

1The 1966 total is given for comparability with Delfin data.
In 1968 Supply was moved to Canberra, Repatriation, and Shipping and
Transport in 1970; and Environment, Aborigines, and Arts was created
and headquartered here in 1971.

125

Table 28. Commonwealth government departments and instrumentalities
with head offices in Canberra in 1966.

W

 

 

 

 

 

 

P. 5. Acta
Employees
l966-67
Ministerial Departments and Date Head
Offices Moved to Canberra
Prime Minister ............. 1927 1,892
Treasurer ............... 1927 14,758
Attorney-General ............ 1927 1,585
Interior ............... . 1927 5,189
Territories .............. 1927 2,291
Immigration .............. 1927 1,761
Trade and Industry ........... 1927 987
Customs and Excise ........... 1927 4,141
Health ................ 1928 3,189
External Affairs ............ 1935 1,812
Housing ................ 1957b 1,167
Total
Air (Military 21,492) ......... 1959 + 3,474 = 24,966
Army (Military 79,269) ......... 1959 + 7,868 = 87,137
Navy (Military 20,617) ...... . . . 1959 + 2,619 = 23,236
Defence ................ 1959 1,160
National Development . . . . . ..... 1965 1,353
Primary Industry ............ 1965 1,642
Social Services .......... . . 1965 3,633
Education and Science ...... . . . 1966b 397
60,918
Government Emplgyees Not Under
POBlic Service Act
With Attorney-General's Department 698
With Navy Department 7,505
With Other Departments not specified 597
8.800
Federal Instrumentalities
Canberra Community Hospital 1,036
Aust. Services Canteens Organization 986
Other, Including Employees of the 5 184
Departments of Parliament ’
Total Civilian 73%—2T
Total Military 121 378
Total Canberra Controlled 198,302

 

aThose listed under the Public Service Act.
First established in Canberra, not transferred.

Source: Commonwealth of Australia Directory, 1966, employment from
' Australia in Facts and Figures, No. 99, Sept., 1968.

126

five of the seven departments headquartered in Melbourne have strong
direct economic inputs: Postmaster-General, Works, Labour and National
Service, Civil Aviation, and Supply.

A number of other organizations, mainly advisory councils,
boards, and committees responsible to various ministers have head offices
or secretariats in Canberra. Generally they function more in the
advisory sphere rather than at the implementation end of Parliamentary
enactments (Table 29). Most of those responsible to the Minister of
the Interior are concerned with Canberra as the national capital. Two
units under the Treasurer are of national extent and economic import-
ance, the Taxation Branch and the Bureau of Census and Statistics.
Decisions by the Tariff Board are critical to a number of manufacturers

operating under protective tariffs.

Commonwealth Employment

The Commonwealth Government employed 400,000 civilian and
military personnel in 1966-67 (Figure 16). All of these employees /
result in the Federal Government being the largest employer in Australia,
with 9 per cent of the total Australian work force. Canberra is head-
quarters of Federal departments and organizations which employ close
to half of these persons. Melbourne is a close rival as a headquarters
for Commonwealth staffs largely because of the Postmaster-General's
Department. Head offices of Federal instrumentalities rather than
departments give Sydney control of 10 per cent of the employees. The
Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority operates from Cooma, New

South Wales and directs the activities of 3,000 workers constructing

127

Table 29. Other Commonwealth government organizations with head
offices in Canberra.

 

 

Minister Responsible Organizations

 

Customs and Excise

Health

Interior

National Development

Primary Industry

Prime Minister

Territories

Trade and Industry

Treasurer

Commw. Leterature Censorship Board

Nat'l. Health and Medical Research Council
Registration Boards of the A.C.T.

Commw. Council for National Fitness

Nat'l. Tuberculosis Advisory Council

A.C.T. Advisory Council

Australian National Film Board
Australian War Memorial

Canberra Theatre Trust

Commw. Brickworks (Canberra) Ltd.
National Capital Development Commission
National Memorials Committee

Snowy Mountains Council

Aust. Water Resources Council
National Mapping Council
Australian Forestry Council

Australian Agricultural Council

Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Comm.
Export Sugar Committee

Federal Potato Advisory Committee
Central Tobacco Advisory Committee
Wheat Industry Research Council

Public Service Board
Auditor-General's Office

Territories of the Commonwealth

Export Development Council
Mfg. Industries Advisory Council
Tariff Board

Bureau of Census and Statistics

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board
Government Printing Office

National Debt Commission

Royal Australian Mint

Superannuation Board

Taxation Branch

 

Source: Commonwealth of Australia Directory, 1966.

128

 

  

 
 
 

Military
121,000

    

 

29%
MELBOURNE CANBERRA
172,000 198,000
41% 48%

Civilian
77,000
19%

 
       

 

 

 

SYDNEY 3,000 1% Cooma

 

 

Figure 16. Location of head office control of 413,600 Common-
wealth Government employees.

Source: Australia in Facts & Figures, No. 99, Sept. 1968.

the immense Snowy Mountains Scheme of water diversion for poWer and

irrigation.1

The figure of 4,000 employees is used in this study to dis-
tinguish Major Employers among the Delfin companies. When this figure
is applied to Commonwealth Departments in Canberra it shows four of
them to be among the ranks of big civilian employers. They are Treas-

urer, Interior, Customs and Excise, and Army (See Table 28). The Army,

 

1The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority was not included
in the Delfin Digest. In 1966 its assets of $685 M. would have ranked
it twelfth in the TOP 128. The Snowy Mountains Authority is charged
with construction of the scheme, whereas the Snowy Mountains Council
in Canberra directs and controls the operation of the completed per-
manent works.

 

129

Air, and Navy Departments rank among the very large employers when
their military components are added. All other departments except the
newly created Education and Science have staffs of about 1,000 or more.

The Commonwealth Government head office and employee measures
of Canberra under a broad interpretation do not indicate that the
nation's capital should be classified as a decision-making center.
Control of 77,000 civilian and 121,000 military personnel is far less
than the half-million employees controlled from both Sydney and Mel-
bourne. The combined civilian Commonwealth employees controlled from
CAO's of Federal instrumentalities in these two cities are equal to
Canberra's 200,000. This employee figure does, however, give Canberra
a measure of importance greater than Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, or
Hobart as will be seen in the next chapter. Even when State Government
staffs are added to Delfin company employees in these lesser capitals
Canberra remains the head office location of a larger work force.

One significant importance of Canberra as a place of govern-
ment decision-making is that it provides neutral ground on which the
advocates of the various states and cities can vie for power and favor.
Once Parliament passes the various Acts of Government, they are increas-
ingly being interpreted and implemented by top administrators who live
in Canberra. These persons are geographically and psychologically
removed from the biases and pressures of living in one of the state
capitals. Further, by being the seat of the Federal Government, Can-
berra denies this role and its associated power and prestige to either
of the rival cities of Sydney or Melbourne. As the remaining depart-

mental head offices are transferred from Melbourne to Canberra,

130

especially the very large Postmaster-General's, much of whatever

advantage Melbourne may have had as "temporary" seat of government will
end. Additional direct importance will accrue to Canberra if and when
the head offices of the semi-autonomous authorities such as the Reserve
Bank and Commonwealth Bank, the four transportation authorities, and
the Australian Broadcasting Commission, are relocated to the capital.1

A Strict Interpretation of Canberra's
Decision-Making Role

 

 

The interpretations of the location of ultimate top level
decision-making are critical to the measurement of Canberra as a
decision-making center. It has been shown in previous chapters and
immediately above that a broad interpretation places the control of
half of the Commonwealth employees in Sydney and Melbourne. Further,
the known large assets of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Reserve
Bank, Postmaster-General's Department and other statutory authorities
have all been assigned to head offices in these two cities.

Now a strict interpretation is used to measure Canberra. In
this, the ultimate top level decision-making and control of all Common-
wealth assets and employees are deemed to rest with the Federal Parlia-
ment and Cabinet in Canberra. Although decisions and some measure of
control surely originate in the head offices of departments and other

organizations the final authority is Parliament.

 

1The C.S.I.R.O. moved from Melbourne to its new head office
building in Canberra in 1971 and has been financially restructured as
a statutory authority.

131

When the available statistics on Commonwealth assets and
employees are all assigned to Canberra, this city's control of these
measures increases dramatically from the meager $33 million and 199,000
employees under a broad interpretation to $9,000 million and 414,000
under a strict interpretation (Figure 17). This is the reverse of what
occurred for Sydney and Melbourne in previous chapters. Under a strict
interpretation the Commonwealth Government in Canberra controls 20 per
cent of total assets. This total figure is made up of the 907 Delfin
companies plus the Reserve Bank, Postmaster-General's Department and the
Snowy Mountain Authority. If the very considerable dollar value of the
assets of other Federal departments headquartered in Canberra were known
and added to those of the Postmaster-General's, the Federal banks, and
statutory authorities, it is believed that Canberra would control more
than the $10,000 million in private and State Government assets con-
trolled from Melbourne under this interpretation. Canberra also controls
20 per cent of the 2,000,000 work force made up of the Delfin employees
plus all Federal and State Government employees. This makes Canberra a
strong rival to Sydney and Melbourne, each of which control about 24 per
cent. Commonwealth departments, statutory authorities, and various
other organizations are not as numerous as the Delfin companies in Syd-
ney and Melbourne. However, there is a rather broad diversity of
economic activities and social services in which their employees are
engaged. Commonwealth assets represent a wide sample of the nation's
economic infrastructure.

Based on these measures and their comparability to Melbourne

it is concluded that Canberra is a third important decision-making

132

 

 

 

 

   
 
 
 
  
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 
 

 

 

   

ASSETS IN MILLIONS $a
1(— Broad Strict -=.~1 Commw. Gov't.
< 1% 19.5% with H. O. 236
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 6
8888 Oafaafifinonwealth Government with 8'33 Sydney $ 64
000 CC 000 . Melb. 2, 0
88888888 H. 0. in Syd, Melb, Cooma 000 o C 685
88880000000000000000 158880 888888888 8 ooma
8888 - $15 Foreign 8888888 888888888800 $8,985
$33 Private Dom. & Foreign, and Delfin
Commw. Gov't. H.0. in Canberra
EMPLOYEESb
Broad -aJ Strict {>1 Commw. Gov't.
009- G 't (80% with H.O.
+ Commw. ov . n
H.0. in s, M, Coo E Sydney 40.600
”0008 215 300 88882: ”9“” ”"800
8888000000609000n8000 o Cooma 2,900
- 300 Foreign 00°C C’ ________
Private Dom.O 215,300
Foreign &
Commw. Gov't.

    

 

 

Figure 17. Comparisons of broad and strict interpretations for
Canberra. Showing control of Commonwealth Government assets and employees

from other cities under broad interpretation, assigned to Canberra under
strict interpretation.

aIncludes Delfin companies, PM-G Dept., Reserve Bank of Australia, and
Snowy Mountains Authority.

bIncludes Delfin employees and all Commonwealth Government employees. both
civilian and military.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest and 1968 Yearbook of Australia.

133

center in Australia. As such the national capital receives due
recognition for its important share of decision-making for the nation's
economy. Because the Commonwealth Government is the essence of Can-
berra's importance it can be assumed that this city has a nationwide
nodal region for the decision-making function. This assumption can be

documented and contrasted with the importance of State Governments.

Canberra's Spatial Impact

As the Federal capital, Canberra is certainly the focal point
for political decision-making at the national level. Many of the laws
enacted by Federal Parliament have an effect on economic activities for
the entire nation. The interpretation, communication, and execution of
the top level decisions are carried out by the Federal departments and
agencies in Canberra and across Australia through their branches and
employees. The size of Australia, the distribution of population
around the coast with a sparsely settled interior, and a federal struc-
ture of government all contribute to the dispersal of public service
functions, establishments, and employees away from the nerve center at
Canberra.

The Delfin Digest lists only eight Federal statutory author-

 

ities. In terms of numbers of companies or their establishments they
are not very useful in measuring Canberra's spatial impact. The assets
of these enterprises, even when augmented by those of the Reserve Bank,
the Postmaster-General's Department, and the Snowy Mountain Authority

are not usable in determining the spatial impact of Canberra because

134

the distribution of Commonwealth assets by states is now known. Neither
are the number and distribution of all Federal establishments.

Only the location of Federal civilian employees is available
on a state basis. They are used here to indicate the spatial impact
of decision-making radiating from Canberra to all parts of the nation.
The number of Federal civilian employees located in each state and
territory is shown in Figure 18. The distribution roughly reflects
each state's share of the population. The major anomaly is the larger
number of employees in the Australian Capital Territory, which would be
expected. Federal employees tend to be concentrated in the state capi-
tals where they can most efficiently serve these dominant population
clusters. However, there are branch offices and a variety of other
units scattered throughout the smaller towns and rural areas. The
nationwide distribution of Commonwealth employees substantiates the
assumption of a national nodal region for Canberra.

As further evidence of Canberra's importance, Figure 19 con-
trasts the number of Federal versus State Government employees in each
political unit. The figures give some suggestion of the relative
roles of the two levels of government within states as well as among
states. The large number of Commonwealth employees in both Victoria
and New South Wales are only about half the even more numerous State
workers. Western Australia and Tasmania have the lowest ratios with
about one Federal worker to every three-and-a-half State employees.

A number of Federal departments and authorities have strong
direct economic impact in all states through their branches, staffs,

and operations. Examples of these would be first and foremost the

135

é

COMMONWEALTH CMLIAN EMPLOYEES
1966 BY STATE

ALL AUSTRALIA' 278,100

oooooooooo 2,000 EMPLOYEES

0.0% PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
EMPLOYEES
0 500

MILES

 

Figure 18. Commonwealth civilian employees by state, 1966.

Source: Yearbook of Australia 1968 and State Yearbooks.

136

 

200 States Number of Number of

& Terr. State Empl. Commw. Empl.

NSW 198,000 95,200
Vic 151,000 79,000
Qld 82,200 27,500
S.A. 63,000 26,600
W.A. 53,100 14,600
Tas. 22,700 6,400
N. Terr. None 6,400
ACT None 22,400

150

Total 570,000 278,100

100 E State Employees

IllllllllllIll||||||l|l|Ill1|llllIllll11l111IllIll1llllllll1|1|Ill|ll11|IllIlll|llll1111111111111lllllllll

 

 

 

 

111111|||l|||Il1lllllllllllllll11ll|||ll||11111I1lllllllllllllllllllllil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8O __ ... = ‘ o o 0
5%? ———:88 22: ggg Commonwealth C1v111an
:::388 3:; ;:= Employees
— 000 =_—" E
__.OO E _=___ =
40 — .00 E— E g—
-— 000 E E E
E :000‘ I E E

 

lllllllllllllllllll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w lllllllllllllllllllllllé

 

'ooo__

 

 

 

 

   

.= 11111“

<
-l
n
.o
—l
a
w I

 

 

Figure 19. Commonwealth and State Government civilian employ-
ees by state, 1966.

Source: Yearbook of Australia and State Yearbooks.

137

Postmaster-General's Department, the Treasury, Customs and Excise,
Repatriation, Civil Aviation, Works, Health, and the C.S.I.R.O. and
Trans Australian Airlines. Others having substantial employment and
operations in specific states and territories are:

In New South Wales
Commonwealth Banking Corporation head office
Reserve Bank of Australia head office
Qantas Empire Airways head office and operations
Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority
Australian Broadcasting Commission
Navy Department Dockyards and civilian employees
Overseas Telecommunications Commission head office

In Victoria
Postmaster-General's Department head office
Civil Aviation Department head office
Bureau of Meteorology
Coastal Shipping Commission head office
Trans Australian Airlines head office and shops

In South Australia
Department of Supply Weapons Research Center
Commonwealth Railways workshops and lines

In Western Australia
Commonwealth Railways Trans Australian line

In Tasmania
Coastal Shipping Commission

In the Northern Territory
Northern Territory Administration
Department of the Interior
Commonwealth Railway lines

In the Australian Capital Territory
C.S.I.R.O. head offices and laboratories
Australian National University
Canberra Hospital
Royal Australian Mint
Bureau of Census and Statistics

It is the decision-making linkages from Parliament and the departmental
head offices to these and other organizations that create a national

nodal region for Canberra.

138

It must be emphasized that the three nationwide nodal regions
for decision-making focusing on Canberra, Melbourne, and Sydney are all
co-extensive. The two older cities have not carved up the continent
into their separate preserves, rather, they compete vigorously through-
out the land, and are joined in a somewhat different vein by Canberra
for this top level function. Sydney and Melbourne are in competition
even in each other's home state as documented earlier by the number of
establishments controlled from opposite cities. It will be shown.in
the next chapter that the two cities are powerful factors in each of

the remaining states.

CHAPTER VI

CENTRAL OFFICES IN OTHER CAPITALS AND CITIES

The foregoing analysis of the central administrative offices
of leading Australian companies and the Commonwealth Government show
that Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra are national decision-making
centers. The three cities combined account for 80 per cent of the

assets of the companies in the Delfin Digest. Not much is left to be

 

divided among the remaining four state capitals and other towns. Fur-
ther, no Commonwealth department or statutory authority is headquartered
in any of the smaller state capitals. Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth,
Hobart, and other cities have very limited decision-making roles at the
top levels of industry and government (Figure 20). The ngg§t_and State
Government employment statistics provide data for comparing these cities
among themselves moreso than with Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra

(Table 30). Because of the limited presence of foreign company head
offices in the smaller capitals and the absence of Commonwealth head
offices in them, the comparisons will be made under a broad interpreta-
tion. The limited presence of CAO's and the decision-making function

is documented for each capital first. Their spatial impact is assessed

after that.

139

140

 

i

1 . .
Townswlle 2

l on

I Maria .Eton North

i Sariz}

1

Rockhampton.
“ Gladstone

' Biloela'
....._._..—.—1._._' 8...... 2
. Maryborough'

'___,_ BRISBANE 36
. .—.‘.~.~.~‘ /'

*.

I ' I
I . Toowoornba. o
l

r o ,
' LIeInore

    
 
 

' Tamworth.

° Muswellbrook
PERTH 26 l '

'Vs. Newcastle 13
ADELAIOE‘SS C°°'°""'"d'9 SYDNEY 4I5
WERflfié Wollongong
115.0 '

K. as r. v

Ca. '4' 0 1 Co- Cobram
3 K - Kyabrarn

. o
S ' Shepparton 2

0 W " Wangaratta

a , 9, Ca- Castlemaine
0 I00 200 300 “m 8 - Ballorot 3

- 0
MILE s 90m” 'Launceston

 

Boyer-

OBART 12

 

 

Figure 20. Locations of head offices of 907 Delfin Digest
companies. Four head offices are not shown: one is in Port Mbresby,
Papua-New Guinea and three are in New Zealand.

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

 

 

.mwmepm=< mo xooncmm> ooop soc» :ovumpznoo .uwwmwo :VEPmo Romp Eocw oOFPano ”musoom

 

 

141

 

 

 

 

ompmgpmz<
. . . . . . . . $0 mompcmocmo was
RN P ooo Fe_ am e ooo omm fin o ooo.onn an o ooo Fun .=.>wo Pmuwumwpmpm
=2 coepmpaaoa mom,
Amp.~ om¢.P NNF.¢ mop.w mamaopasm cawmcoo
em a m_ 8 mA_ 8 EP_ a mommm< emwmcoo
N N _ A m.o .I cmwccoo
o_ o_ om mm .Qmm masoco xcpmaueo
ao.o ooo.op ao.~ ooo.¢m &¢.¢ ooo.om xo.m ooo.mo mmmxo—asm
ao.— one a go._ omo a Rm.m mmo.P a ao.¢ Foo.F a meowppwz cw mummm<
go._ up ao.m om ao.¢ om xo.o mm mmuwomo vow:
cmemo cwwwmo cwoFmo compmo
8o mom gmoszz 8o mom Logan: mo mom cmaszz $0 wow Loosoz
-pcmucmo lucmugmo lucmucmo upcmuemo mmczmmmz :wmpmo
“Logo: spew; acmomwco mowmpwo<

 

 

 

 

 

.ucmno: ucm .cpcma .mcmammco .muwmpmv< mo mwcammme m>wpmgmoeoo .om wpom»

142

Adelaide

Adelaide has 55 Delfin head offices which results in it being
ranked a distant third behind Sydney's 415 and Melbourne's 304. It is
similarly in third place among Australian cities in the other measures
of assets and number of employees (Table 30). Adelaide's percentages
of the Delfin measures much more closely approximate its share of the
Australian population than was true for Sydney or Melbourne under a
broad interpretation.

The State owned Savings Bank of South Australia ranks in the
First Echelon of assets. It is the only enterprise in this elite group
which does not have its head offices in either Sydney or Melbourne.
Three other government authorities, the Electricity Trust, the South
Australian Railways, and the State Bank share Second Echelon positions
with the private Bank of Adelaide and Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort
(Table 31). The last named is the nation's second largest wool selling
broker. Adelaide's representation of large and medium-sized companies
among the TOP 128 is completed by the Finance Corporation which is a
hire purchase affiliate of the Bank of Adelaide, and Chrysler Australia,
the only foreign enterprise. These eight companies have 70 per cent of
the assets controlled from this city. Four of them are Major Employers;
together their employees represent 40 per cent of the city's total Delfin
work force. In Adelaide and in the other smaller capitals, assets in
the top three Echelons are dominated, if not exclusively controlled, by
State Government instrumentalities.

Even with a relatively small number of Delfin head offices,

Adelaide manages to be represented in twenty-five industry groups.

Table 31. Adelaide based companies ranked by assets.

1113

j

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Echelon, Company Name Assets Industry No. of
Gov't./Foreign Control 5 M. Group Empls.
TOP 128
an
I Echelon> 8300 M.
Savings Bank of South Austa . . . 18 371 Banking 1,101
II Echelon $100-299 M.
Elec. Trust of South Austa . . . 29 247 Utility 5,810
Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort . . 48 153 Wool Brkr 4.921
South Australian Railways‘ . . . 49 152 Govt RR 9.179
Bank of Adelaide . . . . . . . . 55 130 Banking 1,044
State Bank of South Austa . . . . 61 114 Banking n/a
III Echelon $50-99 M.
Finance Corp. of Australia . . . 84 82 Other Fin 236
Chrysler Australia (U.S.) . . . . 88 76 Motor Veh 5,520
Cumulative>’$SO M. (in TOP 128) 1,325 27,811
70% 42%
IV Echelon $30-49 M.
News Limited 38 Newspaper 4,000
South Australian Gas Co 36 Utility 1,158
John Martin a Ca 32 Retail 2,225
Va Echelon 520-29 M.
Adelaide Steamship Co 29 Trans Equi 1,100
Advertiser Newspapers 27 Newspaper 1,544
South Aust. Brewing Co 25 Beer 500
Simpson Pope Holdings 24 Elec Mach 3.134
Beneficial Finance Corp 23 Other Fin 87
Lensworth Finance 22 Other Fin 46
Vb Echelon $10-l9 M.
G. a R. Wills (Holdings) 19 Wholesale 1.100
S. A. Rubber Holdings 18 Rubber 1.700
S. A. Farmers Co-op Union 18 Wool Brkr 1,341
Kelvinator Australia 13 Elec Mach 2.200
Bennett S Fisher 12 Wool Brkr 381
Harris. Scarfe 12 Wholesale 1,000
Adelaide & Walleroo Fertilizer 11 Other Chem 750
Adelaide Cement Holdings 10 Bldg Matrl 150
Vc Echelon< 110 M.
30 Companies in Vc (6 Foreign) 188 16,530
Sub Total IV a V Echelons 556 38,946
30% 58%
Total Adelaide Companies 1.881 66,757

 

.South Australian Government Statutory Authorities.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

144

Fourteen are in manufacturing and eleven are in the primary and tertiary
sector. A third of these industries have only one company headquarters;
the maximum of five is in building materials. Banking has the greatest
assets, $614 million, although this is just 5 per cent of the Delfin
total for all banks. The only group in which Adelaide has the second
largest percentage of assets in any city is the wool selling brokers

and agents with 30 per cent of all group assets. Elder Smith Golds-
brough Mort is the main reason for this eminence. The firm's wide
ranging activities in wool and livestock brokering, transportation,
rural properties, and as station agents, plus strong ties with Adelaide's
financial institutions, make it a major element among the city's more
important business enterprises.

There are no headquarters of Delfin companies in eleven
industry groups. Four of the city's eight largest firms are State
authorities with 47 per cent of its Delfin assets and a quarter of the
Delfin employees. Chrysler Australia, together with six other smaller
foreign firms, account for 3 per cent of the assets and 8,100 employees.
Compared with Sydney and Melbourne the measures of Adelaide's decision—
making role in the private sector are quite modest. 0n the more posi-
tive side, there are no Delfin companies headquartered anywhere else in
South Australia.

The South Australian Government repeats, on a smaller scale,
the role of economic decision-making in Adelaide that was depicted

earlier for Sydney and Melbourne. With about two-thirds of the state

145

population, and no "country town"1 larger than 20,000 persons, Adelaide
is the only location of State Government decision-making for South
Australia. All State departments and organizations are headquartered
here (Figure 21). There are only limited branch operations and these
mainly in Port Lincoln and Mount Gambier.2 State employees number
64,000, a quarter of whom are employed by the five Delfin statutory
authorities. These are in contrast to the 50,000 employees of private
companies headquartered in Adelaide. The only Commonwealth organization
head offices here are for the Australian Wine Board and the Australian
Wine Research Institute which are relatively minor marketing and
research units. They are in Adelaide because the nation's wine industry
is dominated by the vineyards and wineries of the nearby Barossa Valley.
The relative decision-making role of private companies versus the State

Government in Adelaide holds true for the other state capitals.

Brisbane

In 1966 the Adelaide and Brisbane Statistical Divisions had
almost identical populations, 771,000 and 778,000 respectively (Fig-
ure 22). Queensland, the second largest state in land area, had
1,700,000 people. South Australia had 1,100,000 persons in about half

as large an area. Given Queensland's larger population and area, one

 

1"Country town" is an Australian term generally applied to
all non-capital cities and towns with the exception of Newcastle,
Wollongong, and Geelong.

2The Universal Business Directories and Telephone directories
have been used to document the presence or aBSence of government
branches in country towns.

146

 

Figure 21. Adelaide, capital of South Australia.

 

Figure 22. Brisbane, capital of Queensland.

(Photos courtesy of Australian News and Information Bureau.)

147

might expect Brisbane to be a more important location for head offices
than we have seen for Adelaide. Table 30 above shows that such is not
the case. Brisbane has only thirty-six Delfin companies, considerably
less assets, and fewer employees. The metropolitan population is 6.7

per cent of Australia's total, a somewhat higher» share than the other
percentages are of the Delfin measures. Assets are particularly weak

being only 2.5 per cent of the Delfin total.

There are no top Echelon head offices in Brisbane (Table 32).
Three State authorities are in the Second, the Queensland Railways,
Southern Electric Authority of Queensland, and the Government Insurance
Offices. They are joined by the only foreign enterprise on the entire
list, the American controlled Mount Isa Mines. Together, these four
firms control 70 per cent of the assets and 58 per cent of the employees.
The remainder of the companies are quite small. Even collectively
they provide limited competition to the large State Government and
foreign enterprises for economic importance.

Brisbane has head offices in fewer industry groups than Adel-
aide. Manufacturing firms are in nine industries compared with fourteen
for Adelaide. Both cities have eleven primary and tertiary groups
represented, but not the same ones. Bank head offices are notably
missing in Brisbane. Most companies are in the food and drink group
with six, followed by retail trade with five. Thirteen groups have
just one company each. The large assets of the Department of Railways
and the utilities help give the primary and tertiary sector two-thirds
of Brisbane's assets. Mount Isa Mines, which is also a major processor

of copper at its mine site in far northwest Queensland, is the city's

148

Table 32. Brisbane based companies ranked by assets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Echelon, Company Name Assets Industry No. of
Gov't./Foreign Control S M. Group Empls.
I Echelon > 8300 M. None -- --
II Echelon $100-299 M.
TOP 128 Rank
Qld. Dept. of Railwaysa . . . 28 252 Govt RR 25,620
Mount Isa Mines (U.S.) . . . 37 175 Pmry NoFe 4,122
So. Elec. Auth. of Qlda . . . 41 167 Utility 2,995
State Govt. Ins. Officesa . . 52 143 Insurance 1,040
III Echelon $50-99 M. None -- --
Cumulative > $50 M. TOP 128 737 33,777
70% 58%
IV Echelon $30-49 M. None -- --
Va Echelon $20-29M.
Castlemaine Perkins 23 Beer n/a
Pioneer Sugar Mills 22 Food 750
Vb Echelon 810-19 M.
Thiess Holdings l9 Bldg Const 2,077
Queensland Press 18 Newspaper 1,591
United Packages 16 Packaging 1,400
Queensland United Foods 16 Food 1,521
Golden Circle Cannerya 16 Food 1,725
Evans Deakin Industries 15 Trans Equi 2,806
Qld Primary Producers Co-op 14 Wool Brkr n/a
Qld Cement & Lime Co 12 Bldg Mtrl 464
Provincial Traders Holdings 12 Food 1,507
Brisbane Permanent Building .
and Banking Co. 12 Other Fln 50
Milliquin Sugar Co 12 Food 600
Intercolonial Boring Co 11 Wholesale 1,137
Vc Echelon < $10 M.
18 Companies in Vc 96 8,879
Sub Total IV & V Echelons 316 24,507
30% 42%
Total Brisbane Companies 1,053 58,284

 

aQueensland Government Statutory Authorities.
Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

149

standout private firm. By itself it accounts for 21 per cent of the
Delfin primary non-ferrous metals group assets and places Brisbane
second to Melbourne in this group. Unfortunately, it is foreign con-
trolled, unlike Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort in Adelaide. Elder's
operations are much more diverse and spatially diffuse. Mount Isa

Mines and Elder Smith are the only two companies large enough to dis-
place Sydney or Melbourne from first or second places in Delfin industry
groups. Mount Isa Mines and the Department of Railways are the two
Major Employers headquartered in Brisbane.

Private domestic companies in Brisbane are small by Delfin
standards, all being in the Fifth Echelon. Six of the fourteen compan-
ies named in Table 32 are food or beer processors, including the State
owned Golden Circle Cannery. The other manufacturers are: Queensland
Press, publishers of the state's leading newspaper;1 United Packages,
which is primarily associated with the food processing industry; Queens-
land Cement and Lime; and Evans Deakins in heavy and general engineering,
especially small boat building. With the exception of Evans Deakin and
another small engineering firm, most of the manufacturing head offices
are of firms in industries often associated with "developing" nations;
namely, food processing, building and construction materials, and
mineral processing. In the primary and tertiary sector, the city also
has something of an "emerging nation” character. Besides the large
government concerns in railways, electricity, and insurance, there are

three firms in primary industry, two in building and construction, a

 

1The Herald and Weekly Times of Melbourne owns 40 per cent of
the company stock.

150

home loan company, two small gas utilities, and nine retailers and
wholesalers. Missing are head offices of private or government banks,
private insurance, and other financial institutions. The largest
private company in this sector is Thiess Holdings in the construction
industry.

Queensland State Government
anlether Towns

 

 

The State Government in Brisbane must administer a sizably
larger area and population than was true for Adelaide. Less than half
of the state population is concentrated in the capital. Although top-
level governmental economic decision-making is concentrated in Brisbane,
the 83,000 state employees are more dispersed. The larger regional
centers of Townsville, Rockhampton, Mackay, Maryborough, and Toowoomba
have sizable concentrations of both State and Federal workers.1 The
five statutory authorities headquartered in Brisbane employ 32,000
State personnel. That is more than all the private Delfin firms. There
are no Federal Government organizations with head offices here.

Unlike South Australia, eleven smaller Queensland towns are
the locations of thirteen Delfin head offices (See Figure 20). Six of
these companies are locally important sugar mills. The large American
controlled Queensland Alumina smelting operation is in Gladstone.
Regionally important wholesalers are in Townsville and Rockhampton and
engineering firms are in Toowoomba and Maryborough. None of these head

offices provide any serious competition for Brisbane's decision-making

 

1From Universal Business Directories.

 

151

function for the state. If they were all in the capital city they would
not substantially add to its strength. Much of the assets are foreign
controlled in Queensland Alumina, or are associated with the purely
local importance of the six sugar mills. It is evident that Brisbane
has been less successful than Adelaide in attracting the head offices

of private companies both from within the state and from overseas.

Perth

Perth, isolated and lonely in the southwest corner of the
continent, is the capital of the nation's largest state, the million
square mile Western Australia. The city is 2,000 miles from Canberra
and Sydney, and 1,400 miles from Adelaide, the nearest other state
capital. The half million people in the metropolitan area constitute
two—thirds of the state population. As in South Australia, there are
no country towns larger than 20,000 in this huge state. One might
expect to find a proliferation of regionally important head offices of
firms in such an isolated city as Perth so far removed from the great
centers of Sydney and Melbourne.. But the small population warrants
against many companies of a size sufficient to be included in the lefyp
ngggt, There are only twenty-six. Many of the large office buildings
prominent in Perth's skyline house the branch offices of banks, insur-
ance firms, and other businesses whose national head offices are in
eastern cities (Figure 23).

Perth, like Brisbane, is not headquarters for any First
Echelon giant. Similarly, three statutory authorities characterize the

Second Echelon (Table 33). There is only one company, a fertilizer

age; .I
. - .— ‘ 7
“is. r.; 7:1 ‘*

q

 

Figure 24. Hobart, capital of Tasmania.

(Photos courtesy of Australian News and Information Bureau.)

153

Table 33. Perth based companies ranked by assets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Echelon, Company Name Assets Industry Empls.
Gov't/Foreign Control $ M. Group No.
I Echelon > 8300 N. None -- --
II Echelon $100-299 M.
TOP 128 Rank
W. Aust. Govt. Railwaysa . . . 33 191 Govt RR 11,764
Rural & Industries Bank
of Western Australiaa . . . 62 109 Banking 611
State Electricity Comm'n
of Western Australiaa . . . 65 107 Utility 2,650
III Echelon $50-99 N. None -- --
Cumulative > 850 M. TOP 128 407 15,025
63% 44%
IV Echelon $30-49 M.
CSBP & Farmers 32 Other Chem 850
Va Echelon $20-29 M.
Westralian Farmers' Co-op 28 Wool Brkr 1,692
Swan Brewing Co 22 Beer 1,200
Vb Echelon $10-l9 M.
Boans 15 Retail 2,350
West Australian Newspapers 13 Newspaper 1,525
Cockburn Cement (U.K.) a 12 Bldg Mtrl 185
State Govt. Insurance Office 11 Insurance 186
Chamberlain H?lding§ 10 Farm Mach 1,310
Metropolitan Perth Passenger
Transport Trusta 10 Transport 1,770
Vc Echelon < $10 M.
14 companies in Vc (1 For'n) 87 8,054
Sub Total IV 8 V Echelons 242 19,122
37% 56%
Total Perth Companies 34,147

649

 

aWestern Aust. Government Statutory Authorities.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

154

works, in the Fourth, followed by the Westralian Farmers' Co-operative
and Swan Brewery heading the list Of small Delfin companies. Sixteen
Delfin industry groups are represented but eleven have only one company
each. Besides the fertilizer works and the brewery, other Delfin manu-‘
facturers include: Chamberlain Holdings, a maker of farm and construc-
tion equipment; the West Australian Newspapers, publishers of the
state's only daily newspapers; Peters Ice Cream (W.A.); and four build-
ing materials firms. Two of the latter are the only foreign enterprises
operating through Perth. The elementary character of most of these
companies is similar to what was found in Brisbane. Four of the ten
primary and tertiary groups have only one government authority each,

and a fifth, other transportation, has the Western Australian Coastal
Shipping Commission and the Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport
Trust. Westralian Farmers' Ca-operative heads the list of private

firms in this sector, others of which are mainly in retail and vehicle
distribution.

Table 30 on page 141 shows that the percentages of Delfin
head offices, assets, and employees are all less than Perth's 4.8 per
cent of the national p0pu1ation. Two-thirds of the assets are con-
trolled by the six government authorities, as are 15,000 of the Delfin
employees. The Western Australian Government Railways is the only
Major Employer (Table 33). There are no large country towns to detract
from Perth's decision-making function, through either the governmental
or private sectors. All of these factors indicate a minimal presence
of the decision-making function except as exercised by State Government.

The government in administering for 850,000 West Australians has the

155

challenge of developing and governing one third of the continent. At
present much of this is very thinly populated or uninhabited desert or

steppe.

Hobart

There are almost no favorable factors for Hobart to be
important for decision-making. It is the capital of Australia's small-
est state areally and in population. Hobart's share of Tasmania's
371,000 people, 38 per cent, is the smallest portion any capital city
has of its respective state population. Launceston, in the north of
this island state, has always been a serious rival to Hobart because
of its more favorable location to other small north coast towns, the
island's rural population, and to the mainland. Being at the head of
the long Tamar Estuary makes Launceston less accessible by sea whereas
Hobart is on the deep and wide Derwent River estuary, a magnificent
harbor (See Figure 24).

A dozen Delfin head offices with aggregate assets of less
than $500 million are located in Hobart. The Delfin measures and the
city's population are again very slim portions of the Delfin list and
of the nation's p0pu1ation (See Table 30). The three top companies
are statutory authorities. The Hydro-Electric Commission is just short
of being in the tap assets Echelon (Table 34). Its substantial invest-
ment in developing the state's water power potential results in it
ranking quite high among the TOP 128. The Hobart Savings Bank and the
Transport Commission are very small when compared with similar author-

ities in other states. Cadbury-Fry-Pascall, a confectionery maker, and

156

Table 34. Hobart based companies ranked by assets.

 

 

Echelon, Company Name Assets Industry No. of
Gov't./Foreign Control S M. Group Empls.
I Echelon > $300 M. None -- --

 

 

II Echelon $100-299 M.
TOP 128 Rank

 

 

 

 

 

Hydro-Electric Comm'na . . . 25 290 Utility 2,016

III Echelon $50-99 N. None -- --
Cumulative > $50 M. TOP 128 290 2,016
68% 19%

 

IV Echelon $30-49 M.
Hobart Saving Banka 45 Banking 143

 

 

Va Echelon $20-29 M.

 

 

 

 

 

Transport Comm'n (Tas.)a 22 Govt RR 2,753
Cadbury-Fry-Pascall Aust (UK) 21 Food 1,915
Vb Echelon $10-19 M.
Cascade Brewery Co 11 Beer 492
A. G. Webster & Woolgrowers 11 Wool Brkr 590
Vc Echelon < $10 M.
Roberts Stewart & Co 6 W001 Brkr 277
G. P. Fitzgerald & Co 4 Retail 621
Charles Davis 4 Retail 340
Davies Brothers 4 Newspaper 510
Nettlefolds 4 Veh Distr 733
Murex (Australasia) (U.K.) 3 Elec Mach 252
Sub Total IV 8 V Echelons 135 8,625
32% 81%
Total Hobart Companies 426 10,641

 

aTasmania Government Statutory Authorities.
Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

157

the smaller» Murex at the bottom of the list, are British manufacturers.
The Hydro-Electric Commission is the only enterprise of major signifi-
cance among the Delfin 907. Some of the others have statewide influence,
especially the Transport Commission. Although not on the Delfin list

of Major Employers, these two government authorities and Cadbury-Fry

are the only three Hobart headquartered companies with more than a
thousand employees.

The smallness of the state and its population has precluded
even most government authorities from being large. The government's
total employment is just 23,000. If Tasmania was not so favored with
a climate and topography that has given it a substantial waterpower
potential, even the Hydro-Electric Commission would be much smaller.
Unlike South Australia and Western Australia, there are Delfin compan-
ies in four other towns in Tasmania. The largest of these firms is the
Launceston Bank for Savings, with $39 million in assets. The others
are near their sources of raw materials. They include a newsprint mill
at Boyer, a British owned paint pigments factory in Burnie, and the
island's only cement works in Railton. Even if their head offices were
in Hobart the smallness of these companies would not add much to the

city's rather minor decision-making function.

The Spatial Impact of the Smaller Capital Cities

 

The presence of the decision-making function in Adelaide,
Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart is limited. The spatial impact of central
administrative offices and their associated companies in these cities

is also of limited importance and extent as evidenced by Delfin measures.

158

Of the private domestic companies and state statutory authorities,
more operate in one state or locally than at a national or multi-state

1 Even with this localized concentration, the Delfin data indi-

level.
cate that the state capitals are still not the principal focal point

for top level decisions in their respective states.

Number of Companies and Assets

 

Table 35 shows a concentration of companies and assets for
each city in the Intrastate column. The large assets in each case are
predominantly because of state owned statutory authorities, especially
electricity, utilities, railways, and banks. Adelaide has more national
and multi-state regional companies than the other three cities combined.
Yet, the assets of these wider ranging firms in aggregate are about
half those of the one-state companies in South Australia. Only Elder
Smith Goldsbrough Mart, and the Bank of Adelaide and its hire purchase
affiliate, the Finance Corporation of Australia, are national companies
large enough to be included in the TOP 128. The assets of all twenty-
three national companies headquartered in Adelaide, Brisbane, and Perth
constitute less than 2 per cent of the assets of all Delfin companies
operating nationally. At the same time the sixty-three firms which

operate in just one state control a respectable third of all assets of

 

1To be consistent with the spatial analysis done for Sydney‘
and Melbourne, the following concerns only the private domestic and
state enterprises. The dozen foreign firms thereby excluded would not
substantially alter the details for any of the smaller capitals. The
largest of these firms, Mount Isa Mines, operates in Queensland and
the Northern Territory. Chrysler Australia has its main processing
Eng $istribution in Adelaide. The ten other companies are all Fifth

c e on.

159

Table 35. Area of operations of companies with head offices in
smaller capitals.

 

 

 

Total National 4,3 or 2 States Intrastate
City H.O. Assets H.0. Assets H.O. Assets H.0. Assets
S M. S M. S M. s M.
Adelaide 48 $1,765 16 $569 13 $133 19 $1,063a
Brisbane 35 878 6 74 9 88 20 716b
Perth 24 630 1 ll 8 91 15 528c
Hobart 10 420 - -- - -- lO 420d

 

Total 117 $3,675 23 $654 30 $312 64 $2,709e

 

gIncludes $890

cIncludes $584
Includes $437
Includes $357M .of 3 State statutory authorities.

eIncludes $2,268 M. of 19 State statutory authorities.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

. of 5 State statutory authorities.
of 5 State statutory authorities.
. of 6 State statutory authorities.

3333

 

Delfin one-state companies. The local concentration of these assets is

accentuated by examining the distribution of establishments.

City Control of Processipg_
anleOtaT’Establishments

 

 

Both processing and total Delfin establishments are highly
concentrated in the capitals of their respective states. The numbers
of units and percentages in home states are in inverse order for these
four cities (Table 36). Adelaide has the largest number of processing
and total units. It also has the lowest percentages of establishments
in its home state. At the opposite end, Hobart companies have the

fewest processing and total establishments and all are in Tasmania.

160

Table 36. Processing and total Delfin establishments controlled from
smaller capitals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cit Total In Home State Highest Percentage
y No. No. % Out of State and No.
Processing Establishments

Adelaide 160 112 70% 11.3% in Victoria (18)

Brisbane 103 83 81% 10.7% in N.S.W. (ll)

Perth 68 64 94% 2.9% in S. Aust. (2)
and N. Terr. (2)

Hobart 24 24 100% None

Total 355 288
Total Establishments

Adelaide 1,135 714 63% 10.3% in N.S.W. (117)

Brisbane 464 389 84% 8.0% in N.S.W. E37;

Perth 284 262 92% 4.0% in S. Aust. 11

Hobart 96 96 100% None

Total 1,979 1,461

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

The high percentages of establishments in the home states
account for the small proportions found elsewhere. Adelaide companies
have 11 per cent of their processing establishments (only 18 units) in
Victoria and a further 10 per cent of total establishments in New South
Wales. These are the highest percentages for any of the smaller capitals.

Percentage of Establishments in Each State
Controlled from Its Capital City

 

 

The other side of the analysis is that even with strong

internal concentration, each state has a low proportion of Delfin

161

establishments controlled from its respective capital (Table 37).
Adelaide, with control of a quarter of both processing and total estab-
lishments in its own state is the strongest capital of the four,
followed by Perth, Brisbane, and Hobart. The lack of rival in-state

Table 37. Percentage of home state processing and total establishments
controlled from state capitals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Total No. Controlled from Capital
In State No. Percentage
Processing Establishments
South Australia 433 112 26% from Adelaide
Queensland 551 83 15% from Brisbane
Western Australia 327 64 20% from Perth
Tasmania 167 24 14% from Hobart
Total Establishments
South Australia 2,646 714 27% from Adelaide
Queensland 3,252 389 12% from Brisbane
Western Australia 1,963 262 13% from Perth
Tasmania 975 96 10% from Hobart

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

centers in South Australia and Western Australia help explain part of
the differences. Townsville, Toowoomba, and the sugar mill towns in
Queensland reduce Brisbane's spatial impact somewhat. But the main
factor detracting from the capital cities' shares of establishments in
their own states is the large number of establishments controlled from

Sydney, Melbourne, and by foreign companies (Figure 25).

162

 

TOTAL DELFIN 3:; fi« “x. ..’

..r' a ‘1" .
x tsmtlsmns (Jr. 4:. , , ,

 
 
 

/b\_/
Af/ '
Kl
( 1-‘—'—"""-"-‘—
! 2....
1,963 |
I [[84]
\ ' suapor
SIABPOF
\rPERTH
‘1

  

T“

SHABOF

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENT S

0 500

MILES

SMABPNOF
JEDMYLES

Figure 25. The percentages of Delfin companies' total establish-
ments in own state controlled from smaller capital cities.

 

 

 

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

163

The distribution of Delfin establishments shows the relatively
weak role of those headquartered in Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, and
Hobart in their respective states. This indicates that these cities
are less than "masters in their own houses." Brisbane, Perth, and
Hobart all rank fourth in percentage of establishments in their respec-
tive states, behind Foreign, Melbourne, and Sydney (Table 38). Even
in South Australia where Adelaide ranks first, Sydney, Melbourne, and
foreign firms control 69 per cent of all establishments. Sydney and
Melbourne together dominate each state, controlling about half of the
Delfin establishments.

Table 38. Control of Delfin total establishments in states of smaller
capitals.

 

 

Control from Various Cities Ranked by Percentages

 

 

 

 

 

SOUTH AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND
l. ADELAIDE 27% 1. Foreign 27%
2. Melbourne 24% 2. Melbourne 26%
3. Sydney 23% 3. Sydney 25%
4. Foreign 22% 4. BRISBANE 12%
5. All Other 4% 5 All Other 10%
Total 100% Total 100%
Syd. + Melb. 47% Syd. + Melb. 51%
WESTERN AUSTRALIA TASMANIA
1. Foreign 28% 1. Melbourne 36%
2. Melbourne 25% 2. Foreign 29%
3. Sydney 23% 3. Sydney 18%
4. PERTH 13% 4. HOBART 10%
5 All Other 11% 5 All Other 7%
Total 100% Total 100%
Syd. + Melb. 48% Syd. + Melb. 54%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

164

It is concluded that Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and Hobart are
not decision-making centers. The relatively small number of central
administrative offices in these cities, and the limited assets and
employees controlled from them result in decision-making roles far
inferior to Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra. The Delfin establishments
indicate that these smaller capitals are not even the main centers for
the private sector decision-making in their states. CAO's in Sydney
and Melbourne are the foci for control of much of the private economic

activity throughout Australia.

Delfin Companies in Non-Capital Cities and Towns

The Delfin Digest provides the information to document the

 

paucity of the decision-making function in non-capital cities and towns
as well as was evidenced for Hobart and Perth. Fifty-five companies
have their headquarters in thirty-two other locations (See Figure 20).
In total, these firms control more assets than either Perth or Hobart
(Table 39). With few exceptions, however, most are only Fifth Echelon
in assets size. None of the companies rank as Major Employers although
several have over a thousand employees. Of the five firms not in the
lowest Echelon, the three largest are foreign companies. The American
controlled Queensland Alumina is the only non-capital city firm in the
TOP 128, having $104 million invested in a new smelter and supporting
facilities at Gladstone. Two New Zealand insurance companies in the
Third Echelon operate branches in Australia directky controlled by

head offices in Auckland. In the Fourth Echelon are two companies in

165

Table 39. Non-capital city Delfin Companies.

 

”

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of No. of Assets No. of

State Cities Co's S M. Empls.

New South Wales 6 18 169 8,324

Victoria 8 16 127 6,027

Queensland ll 13 202 7,059
South Australia -- -- -- -—
Western Australia -- -- -- --

Tasmania 4 4 91 2,125
Aust. Capital Terr. -- -- -- --
Northern Territory -- -- -- --

In Australia 29 51 589 23,535

Othera

New Zealand 2 3 167 2,662

Papua-New Guinea 1 l 17 589

Other 3 4 184 3,251

TOTAL 32 55 773 26,786

 

aIncludes two New Zealand insurance firms that have
branches throughout Australia controlled directly from Auckland or
Dunedin. The only company listed in the Delfin Digest for Papua-
New Guinea is Steamships Trading Company ofFPort Moresby. It owns
plantations and is in island trading, shipping, wholesaling, and
general engineering.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

166

Tasmania, the Launceston Bank for Savings at Launceston, and Australian
Newsprint Mills at Boyer.

The food and drink group has the largest number of companies,
thirteen, in eleven cities and towns. These include the previously
mentioned sugar mills in five Queensland country towns. The remaining
firms are more diverse, being in twenty-two other industry groups.
Industries with three to five CAO's at various locations are building
materials, other transportation equipment, mining, insurance, utilities,
and wholesale distribution. The minimal decision-making function these
various headquarters may bring to the country towns is further diminished
by foreign control of a quarter of them. In total, the fifty-five com-
panies represent 6 per cent of Delfin firms and 2 per cent of both assets
and employees. Hobart would be included in this list of lesser cities
except for its economic decision-making role as capital of Tasmania and
through the presence of State Government statutory authorities and
departments. Without these it would be on a par with Newcastle in terms

of Delfin measures.

Newcastle, Wollongong, and Geelong
At the 1966 census, Australia had ten urban statistical units
with populations greater than 100,000. Six of these were the state

capitals. The others were:

Newcastle Statistical District 323,000 Population
Wollongong Statistical District 177,000 Population
Geelong Statistical District 111,000 Population
Canberra Statistical District 107,000 Population

The Newcastle Statistical District has thirteen small Delfin

head offices controlling $135 million in assets and employing 6,500.

167

Twelve industry groups are represented. Shortland County Council, an
electricity distributor, and the State Dockyards are statutory author-
ities of New South Wales. Allis-Chalmers Australia, an American manu-
facturer of farm equipment, and Courtaulds (Australia), a subsidiary of
the big British synthetic fiber maker, have their principal plants and
head offices in Newcastle. Together these state and foreign enterprises
control just about half the assets. This seriously reduces what small
decision-making impact there is in this largest non-capital city. There
are seven manufacturers and six primary and tertiary head offices in
Newcastle. Being less than a hundred miles north of Sydney, almost all
of these headquarters are of small local companies in conjunction with
their principal operational facility.

Wollongong, the seventh largest urban center in Australia, is
just fifty miles south of Sydney. It has only one Delfin head office.
Breckett Limited, which is 50 per cent American owned, is a reclaimer
of metal scrap. The company has only $3 million assets. Wollongong is
almost a satellite of Sydney in many respects, which has resulted in
almost no major head offices. Its principal industry, the great iron
and steel mills, is controlled from Melbourne by the Broken Hill Pro-
prietary Company.

Geelong has six Delfin head offices with $38 million in assets
and 1,700 employees. Two British'firms control nearly half of these
assets, Pilkington Brothers--a glass maker, and Birmid Auto Castings.
Again, all companies are small, topped by Pilkington Brothers' $14

million assets. Each is of only local or minimum state importance.

168

The other small non-capital city companies are all in the
Fifth Echelon. Besides Newcastle, Geelong, and Canberra, the only other
towns having more than one company head office are Ballarat and Shep-
parton in Victoria and Bundaberg and Townsville in Queensland (See
Figure 20). Ballarat has a heavy engineering firm, an American roller
bearing company, and a brewing investment company. Shepparton is the
location of the American Campbell Soup factory and of Shepparton Pre-
serving Company, a fruit canner. Fairymead Sugar Mills and Gibson and
Howes are sugar millers in Bundaberg. Samuel Allen and Sons, a general
wholesaler, and North Australian Cement serve the north of Queensland
from Townsville.

The forty-two private domestic companies having head offices
in such non-capital cities and towns as Newcastle, Geelong, and Towns-
ville are decidedly local or one-state in the extent of their operations.
Only four small (Fifth Echelon) companies operate nationally. They are:
M. B. John and Hattersley engineers, the Ardmona Fruit Products Co-
Operative, and Kyabram Preserving Company, all headquartered in Victoria;
and another engineering firm in Toowoomba, Queensland--Industrial Enter-
prises. Another eight firms operate in two or three states. The largest
number, thirty, Operate only locally or in one state. Together all
these companies have just 2 per cent of both processing (89) and total
(401) establishments. Their units are found predominantly in Victoria,
New South Wales, and Queensland.

The smaller cities and towns and the companies associated

with them are of minimal consequence to the determination of nodal

169

regions in Australia. Their impact is so small, scattered, and
localized as to not seriously detract from the regional roles of the

capital cities.

CHAPTER VII

FOREIGN COMPANIES IN THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Companies and Industries

 

Foreign companies play an important role in the Australian
economy. Top level decisions made in central administrative offices
of international companies in London, New York, and other cities are
implemented through the Australian management offices of these enter-
prises. Most such offices for Australian operations are located in
Sydney or Melbourne with a scattering of others in the smaller state
capitals and cities.‘ When all 263 foreign firms are examined in aggre-
gate they constitute roughly a quarter of the Delfin head offices,

assets, and employees (Table 40).

Table 40. Delfin foreign controlled companies.

 

 

 

Head Office Assets No. of

No's. $ M. Empls.

All Foreign 263 $9,808 313,000
Percentage of Delfin 29% 24% 24%

Manufacturing Sector 199 $5,161 252,000
Percentage of Mfg. 40% 46% 36%

Primary and Tertiary

Sector 64 $4,647 51,000

Percentage of P. & T. 16% 15% 8%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

170

171

Under a strict interpretation of the location of ultimate
control a quarter of Australia's leading firms represents a substantial
amount of overseas influence in the nation's economy, but far from
"economic colonialism." This is especially true when it is considered
that these companies are not all headquartered in one overseas city,
let alone one country. Foreign enterprises have about the same dollar
value of assets invested in the manufacturing sector as in the primary
and tertiary. The percentages in the two divisions are considerably
different for all three measures, and show foreign firms relatively more
strongly represented in manufacturing.

At the industry group level foreign companies have over $300
million or a high percentage of assets invested in eight manufacturing
and five primary and tertiary groups. Trading banks and petroleum refin-
ing stand out in terms of actual dollars whereas industrial chemicals
and vehicle assembly have the highest percentages (Table 41, Part A).

On the positive side of the ledger for Australian control of its economy
are a number of groups where foreign investment is limited or absent
(Table 41, Part B). Another way of assessing domestic versus foreign
dominance in key industries is to look at the nine Delfin groups having
assets of more than $1,000 million (Table 41, Part C). These nine con-
trol nearly three-quarters of all Delfin assets. The petroleum refining
and marketing group is the only foreign dominated industry among these
important segments. The government railways and utilities remain exclu-
sively Australian industries.

Sydney has been chosen most frequently as the location for the

Australian offices of foreign companies, having 150 of the Delfin total.

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 41. Foreign control of industry groups.
Assets Percentage gags“
Group > $300 m of Group ofp.
S m. Assets Group
A. Strong Foreign Representation
Primary Non-Ferrous Metals $ 701 86% 7/13
Farm, Constr. 8 Other Equip 116 75% 9/14
Motor Vehicle Assembly 674 97% 7/9
Electrical Mach, Equip 365 61% 24/39
Petroleum Refining 8 Mktg 1,147. 74% 10/13
Industrial Chemicals 619 99% 20/21
Other Chem, Fert, Pharm 249 72% 26/35
Food 8 Drink 326 26% 23/82
Mining 454 62% 6/25
Wool Selling Brokers 8 Agents 297 49% 3/16
Banks, Trading 8 Saving 2,478 18% 2/15
Other Finance 457 25% 6/35
Insurance, Life 8 Non-Life 467 10% 12/47
8 Weak Foreign Representation
Metal Bldg Supplies 8 Equip $ 15 8% 3/20
Agricultural 8 Pastoral
Production 8 Distribution 19 7% 2/14
Investment Banking -- -- 0/10
Railways, Government -- -- 0/7
Other Transportation 19 3% 2/23
Utilities -- -- O/20
Retail Trade 21 2% 2/50
Investment 8 Holding Co's 6 2% 1/20
Total Foreign Percent-
Induztrxsggggpgiggnked Assets Assets age
y S m. S m. Foreign
C. Delfin Groups with more than
$1,000 million Assets
Banks, Trading 8 Saving $13,675 $2,478 18%
Insurance, Life 8 Non-Life 4,498 468 10%
Utilities 2.764 -- --
Railways, Government 1,844 -- --
Other Finance 1,828 457 25%
Petroleum Refining 8 Mktg 1,554 1,147 758
Food 8 Drink 1,280 326 26%
Retail Trade 1,092 21 2%
Primary Iron 8 Steel 1,073 184 17%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

173

Melbourne is next with 85. Of the remaining companies, Adelaide has
seven, while the other capitals and small towns have one or two each.
Melbourne and Sydney would be almost identical centers of foreign assets
without the presence of the Australian and New Zealand Bank and the
English, Scottish and Australian Bank. These two pillars of Melbourne's
financial power give it a strong lead in foreign investment. However,
this factor reduces the city's importance as a domestic decision—making
center under a strict interpretation. Over one-third of Melbourne's
Delfin company assets are foreign controlled as compared with 15 per
cent for Sydney and Brisbane. Mount Isa Mines is the latter's only
foreign enterprise head office. CAO's in Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart
all have less than 7 per cent of their assets foreign controlled.

The companies based in Australia's two largest cities control
93 per cent of Delfin foreign assets and employees. This leaves 7 per
cent channeled through all other places. Thus, while reserving the
ultimate top-level decision-making to their various overseas headquarters,
international businessmen have usually chosen to locate their Australian
managements in the same two cities that Australian businessmen have most
frequently favored. Sydney has been more often chosen, but the value
of assets controlled through Melbourne is considerably larger, the

excess over Sydney being mainly through banking.

Nations Represented

British and Americans dominate foreign enterprises operating
in Australia. They have roughly equal numbers of companies but the

United Kingdom firms are clear leaders in assets and employees controlled

174

(Table 42). Both the United States and the United Kingdom have nearly
equal assets in the manufacturing sector, about $2,400 million each.
Through banking, mining, wool brokering, insurance, other finance, and
smaller investments in other primary and tertiary groups the British
have $3,900 million in this sector compared with only $500 million for
the Americans. The $664 million total assets of the nine lesser nations
are about three-to-two in manufacturing versus primary and tertiary
groups. Although overshadowed by the British and Americans, the com-
panies of these lesser nations occupy interesting niches in Australia's
economy, such as Electronic Industries, Massey-Ferguson in farm machin-
ery, and Nestlé confectionery and dairy products. Several companies
are Third and Fourth Echelon in assets size, but sixteen are in the
Fifth Echelon. A number of these firms are subsidiaries of well known
international companies from European industrial nations such as West
Germany's Volkswagen and Asea Electric and Ericsson from Sweden.

The minimum assets size of about $2-to-4 million for most
Delfin industry groups has excluded a number of smaller foreign con-
trolled firms from this analysis. The same lower limits have excluded
a great many small Australian business firms. The one nation notably

absent from the Delfin Digest companies is Japan, although it is a

 

major trading partner of Australia as are the United Kingdom and the
United States.

Ultimate top level decision-making for 263 foreign companies
lies outside of Australia. However, many important decisions are made
in Sydney and Melbourne by the local boards and management officers of

these firms. Policies and decisions pertinent to the Australian

175

Table 42. Foreign nations with Delfin companies operating in
Australia.

W

 

 

 

~ Co's Assets in Employees
Foreign Nation No ' Australia in Aust.
' $ m. No.

United Kingdom 122 $6,307 173,000
Percentage of Foreign) 47% 64% 55%
United States 114 $2,837 110,000
Percentage of Foreign 44% 29% 35%
U.K. + U.S. 236 $9,144 283,000

90% 93% 90%

New Zealand 3 167 2,662
Netherlands 2 112 10,800
Switzerland 5 88 7,464
West Germany 5 73 3,317
Canada 4 70 3,983
Hong Kong 1 68 230
Sweden 5 46 1,200
France 1 22 220
Papua-New Guinea 1 17 589
All Others 27 $ 664 30,565

10% 7% 10%

Total Foreign 263 $9,808 313,000

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

176

operations of the companies are strongly influenced by the local
officers. Even if they do not make the ultimate decisions, they inter-
pret and implement broad directives and general policies, thus having
considerable input into the ultimate effect of decisions made in over-
seas headquarters. In subtracting the total assets and employees of
these foreign firms from the Delfin totals for Australian cities, the
adjustment under a strict interpretation may be too severe. If any-
thing, the correction is in the direction of being overly-cautious
rather than too lenient. In the final analysis, however, it is men in
London, New York, and other overseas cities that are risking their
companies' assets and who are accountable to the stockholders. Austral-
ian tap management and even boards of directors of foreign subsidiaries
generally serve at the discretion of the top international administra-

tion and its directors.

Spatial Impact of Foreign Controlled Companies

In aggregate, foreign controlled companies occupy an important
position in the Australian economy. Their spatial impact is nationwide.
Although their Australian management offices are strongly concentrated
in Sydney and Melbourne, production and other establishments are found
in all states and territories. Foreign Delfin establishments constitute
important proportions of units in every state.

Companies and Assets by
Area of Operations

 

 

The impact of foreign companies is areally extensive; 164

operate nationally and an additional 67 operate in more than one state

177

(Table 43). Of the remaining which operate locally or in one state,

several have wide impact because they are the producing units for

Table 43. Foreign controlled Delfin companies by area of operations.

 

 

 

 

 

Companies Assets
Area of
Operation No. % of $ M. % of
Foreign Foreign
National 164 62% $8,136 83%
4, 3, or 2
States 67 26% 1,239 13%
1 State and
Local 32 12% 433 4%
Total 263 100% $9,808 100%

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

associated firms which market nationally. This is particularly true of
oil refineries, petro-chemical and pharmaceutical companies. There are
more foreign firms operating nationally than there are domestic firms
headquartered in either Sydney (125) or Melbourne (115). The national
companies include most of the major ones, and thus, have by far the
largest share of assets. The $8,000 million assets of these national
foreign companies rank between those of Sydney ($9,300 million) and
Melbourne ($6,800 million).

Foreign firms make up one-third of the TOP 128 list (see
Table 4). There are also twenty among the Major Employers (see Table
6). For the most part these leading firms operate nationally. The

ANZ Bank and ES and A Bank have the largest number of establishments

178

distributed nationwide. Four insurance houses and five hire purchase
firms also have widespread operations. Large foreign firms are pre-
dominantly in manufacturing and mining. Some of these operate the
largest factories in Australia. Their various establishments are
found in all the capital cities as well as in country towns and rural
areas.

Most foreign manufacturers in the TOP 128 list are subsid-
iaries of well known multi-national corporations. Among those operating
nationally are a dozen British firms including: Imperial Chemical
Industries of Australia and New Zealand, Shell Australian Securities,
Conzinc Riotinto of Australia, British Petroleum of Australia, British
Tobacco (Australia), Metal Manufacturers, John Lysaght (Australia),
Tubemakers of Australia, Unilever Australia (Holdings), George Weston
Foods, British Motor Corporation (Australia), and Commonwealth Indust-
rial Gases. There are nine big subsidiaries of American corporations
with marketing and processing establishments throughout Australia.

They are: General Motors-Holden's, Mobil Oil Australia, Ford Motor
Company of Australia, Comalco Industries, Caltex Oil (Australia), Esso
Standard Oil (Australia), International Harvester Company of Australia,
Goodyear Tyre and Rubber (Australia), and Chrysler Australia. The last
named company, Chrysler Australia, is the only one of these companies
not having its Australian management office in either Sydney or Mel-
bourne. Its head office and principal works are in Adelaide.

Multi-state regional foreign companies from the TOP 128
generally have smaller assets than their national counterparts. Most

are involved in mining, primary metal processing, or petroleum refining.

179

Thus, they usually have just one or a few major processing
establishments and a limited number of distribution units. Operating
in four states are: Alcoa of Australia with processing plants in
Western Australia and Victoria and Amoco Australia with its refinery
at Brisbane and markets in the four eastern mainland states. Operating
in three states are: Consolidated Gold Fields Australia with six mines
in New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania; and Broken Hill Associated
Smelters with big works at Port Pirie, South Australia and two smaller
plants in New South Wales. Among the foreign multi-state regional
operators, Mount Isa Mines has the largest assets, $175 million. How-
ever, its principal activities are at Mount Isa and near Townsville in
northern Queensland with exploration work being done in the Northern
Territory. Another miner, New Broken Hill Consolidated has its only
mine at Broken Hill, New South Wales and its management office in
Melbourne (as do the other two domestic mine operators at Broken Hill).
Petroleum Refineries (Australia) has only two processing establishments,
with refineries at Adelaide and near Melbourne. Its products are
marketed by Mobil and Essa. Only two of the TOP 128 companies operate
locally. Australian Oil Refinery has just one big plant on Botany Bay
in southern Sydney but its output is sold nationally by Caltex. Queens-
land Alumina is constructing the world's largest primary alumina smelter
complex at Gladstone on the central Queensland coast.

Completing the list of the TOP 128 foreign firms are two
British controlled pastoral houses. Dalgety-New Zealand Loan operates
through some 300 establishments as stock and station agents and wool

brokers in all mainland states and territories. It has pastoral

180

properties in New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia.
Australian Estates also has pastoral properties in Queensland and New
South Wales and some ninety stock and station agents in these two
states and Victoria. The 219 smaller foreign firms are more frequently
found as multi-state regional or one-state operators than their larger
counterparts. However, they are most numerous as national companies.
Among these companies manufacturers still predominate. They represent
a wide spectrum of the manufacturing industry groups. Many have pro-
cessing plants in all states, although there is a tendency, as among
the larger firms, to have more of the principal processing establish-
ments in Sydney or Melbourne near the nation's largest markets.
§patia1 Distribution of Foreigp
Controlled Establishments

Foreign companies have almost 1,000 processing establishments
and over 5,000 total Delfin establishments in Australia. They are less
concentrated in any one state than is true for the domestic companies
controlled from any one Australian city (Table 44). Even so, over
half of both processing and total establishments are in New South Wales
and Victoria with Queensland ranking a weak third in both columns. The
single highest proportion is the 36 per cent of processing units in New
South Wales. In this state and Victoria are many of the largest manu-
facturing plants in the nation including auto assembly plants, refin-
eries, clothing factories, metal works, and food processing. About
1,500 total establishments are also found in each of these states and

include many of the branch offices of banks, insurance companies,

181

Table 44. Distribution of Delfin establishments controlled by foreign

 

 

 

 

 

companies.
Processing Total
Establishments Establishments
No. % No. %
New South Wales 354 35.9% 1,571 29.1%
Victoria 267 27.1% 1,438 26.7%
South Australia 81 8.2% 584 10.8%
Queensland 142 14.4% 877 16.3%
Western Australia 97 9.8% 549 10.2%
Tasmania 37 3.8% 282 5.2%
Northern Territory 4 .4% 4O .7%
A. C. T. ____:i .4% ___£Ei 1.0%
Foreign Total 986 100.0% 5,394 100.0%
Delfin Total 4,351 23,414

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

pastoral houses, and retail outlets, as well as the above mentioned

processing units.

Percentqge of Each State's Establishments
Which are Foreign Controlled

 

 

About 23 per cent of both processing and total establishments
are controlled by foreign firms. These rank third behind domestic
units with head offices in Sydney and Melbourne. Absolutely and rela-
tively, the number of establishments is important both nationally and
within individual states. The range of control varies from a low of
11 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory to a high of 30 per cent

in Western Australia (Figure 26). When compared with companies

182

com MSSIG
ESTABLISH!”

I H 4.351

8 88

SHABPOF

 

 

 

PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENT S
FOREIGN CONTROL

0 500

 

Figure 26. The percentage of each state's Delfin processing
establishments controlled by foreign companies.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

 

 

183

controlled from the various Australian capital cities foreign firms

rank first in number of processing establishments in Western Australia,
second in New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania, and third in
Victoria, the Northern Territory, and the Australian Capital Territory.
Only in South Australia do they rank fourth, yet even here there are
very important units such as Esso's refinery, Chrysler's and General
Motors-Holden's auto factories, and the Broken Hill Associated Smelter's
works at Port Pirie.

Foreign control of total establishments is similarly important
when compared to state capitals (Figure 27). Overseas firms rank first
in Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory, second
in Victoria and Tasmania, third in New South Wales and the Australian
Capital Territory, and fourth in South Australia again.

The one-quarter of processing and total establishments on a
national basis, and high relative control in most states and territories,
indicates the nationwide importance of decision-making done by foreign
firms. There is not a concentration in one state, rather the pattern
of both production and moreso of total establishments roughly approxi-
mates the national population distribution. New South Wales and Victoria
are the locations of the greater number of these establishments.

Foreign control is from central administrative offices in a
number of cities in two major nations, the United Kingdom and the United
States, and in several smaller countries. No one city or nation is
dominant as was true of London and the United Kingdom prior to political
federation. This detracts somewhat from the overall influence of

foreign CAO's because control is diffuse. At the same time, in

184

TOTAL KLFTI
[SIMIMITS

1 l I 23.41!

SIAIPOF
SIAIPOF

. 6 2“ 1 $7 235
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS 1, ,. , , , o , °

FOREIGN CONTROL

0 50° ' gfl 975
:; SIAIPHOF

Figure 27. The percentage of each state's total Delfin establish-
ments controlled by foreign companies.

SIABOF

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

 

 

185

aggregate terms they control nearly a quarter of the Delfin companies,
assets, employees, and processing and total establishments-~a very
sizable share of any nation's economic structure. Their impact is

nationwide and on many local scenes.

CHAPTER VIII

COMPARATIVE METROPOLITAN DOMINANCE IN
THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

The preceding chapters have examined the central administrative
offices and top level decision-making in each Australian city. The
presence of the function in varying amounts is indicated for all capi-
tals. There is a substantial foreign component as well. The relative
dominance of Australian cities as locations of CAO's and as decision-
making centers is compared in this chapter prior to examining the third
hypothesis of a centrally directed economy. A strict interpretation of
the location of top level decision-making is used. This author believes
that such an interpretation best reflects the true location of ultimate
decision-making and control by the Commonwealth Government and by
foreign enterprises operating in Australia. Data on 907 Delfin Digest
companies plus three major Federal Government organizations not included
therein,1 and all Commonwealth and State Government employees are used

in the comparisons of the capital cities.

Companies, Assets, and Employees

 

The number and location of 910 head offices of major domestic

and foreign companies and government statutory authorities and

 

1The Postmaster-General's Department, the Reserve Bank of
Australia, and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority.

186

187

organizations measure the decision-making function for a key segment of
the nation's economy (Figure 28). By this measure Sydney has a clear
lead over all other cities. However, its rival, Melbourne, is not to

be denied a very considerable importance. The other capitals, including
Canberra, are "also-rans." Overseas CAO's of foreign companies operat-
ing in Australia equal the number for private domestic firms and State
Government statutory authorities in Sydney.

Assets of the Delfin companies give a more refined measure of
the location of decision-making and ultimate control. Dollar figures
give a weighted value to companies with large or small assets. The
companies and government statutory authorities included in the lefip
Riggs; have assets of $41,000 million. The three Comonwealth Government
instrumentalities have been added because of their considerable assets,
a combined $4,900 million. Data on assets of other government depart-
ments and organizations are not available on a basis comparable with

those in the Delfin Digest. However, forty-five Commonwealth and State

 

semi-autonomous statutory authorities are included in the Delfin list.
So a very substantial amount of government business enterprise is repre-
sented in this analysis. The total assets of the 910 government and
private enterprises is $46,000 million (Figure 29).

The division of ultimate control of these assets among Austral-
ian cities under a strict interpretation assigns all Commonwealth assets
to Canberra. Assets of all foreign companies are aggregated as foreign
controlled. They are not assigned to the city having their Australian

management offices as was done earlier under a broad interpretation.

188

TOTAL FOREIGN 263

(I‘m :9;in i’f.."..'?fy‘ .‘c. ’g .
‘-"“---',,l .3...” .a‘ a“
l,-I.na ‘i A“... _K.\ '1;—
l‘ln,‘__L "11 I.“ in, 1 I l_A as
ill.‘)AI‘--'l‘ AL.| a 'L_l -s}
...-a,.,a. .1. ...4- .5}
I .L".I' .11), .3 ., 1 .NI'L C‘
Jig-Dal“. .u... .. _- \rv 21$
CWI-ocbé “.015" in: "RWY ~66

U.K. 122 U.S. 114 OTHER
27

O I I
31.52
1.....-

rc—o-u-,~'-.-u‘ ,"
w

. l
g ’ OTHER
\ ‘ .mxéfik
“ é . \ CANBERRA? ....:1...;‘;.f.‘§¢1::i.
. l ~n.~_. 88.8.8828“
l, =‘- SYDNEY 262

LOCATION OF ULTIMATE CONTROL ! OWE}!
or 910 TOP COMPANIES AND ' g 3..
GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS , 0,,

M LBOURNE 215

TO COMPANIES

 

 

Figure 28. Location of ultimate control of 910 top companies
and government organizations. Strict interpretation assigns control of
all foreign companies overseas, and all Commonwealth enterprises to Can-
berra. The latter include the Postmaster-General's Department, the Reserve
Bank of Australia, and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority not
included in the 907 companies listed in the 1967 Delfin Digest.

 

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

189

 

TOTAL ASSETS
$46,127 mi11ion

   
      
     
  

50.5%

   
 

Melbourne
$10,367
22.5%

   
 

Canberrac
$9,003
19.5%

Foreign
$9,791
21.2%

 
   

  
 
 
    
   

  

Sydney
$12,895
28%

   

 

 

Private Domestic [::] B _lgide 9.3%
State Governmentb Egg pglihane 530 1:4
AUth°rltleS Hobart 402 .9
Commonwealth '3 Other 396 .8
Government .. -————
Foreign Total $4,071 8.8%

 

 

Figure 29. LoCation of control of $46,000 million assets of 910

major companies and government organizations.a

a907 Delfin companies, PM-G, Reserve Bank, Snowy Mountain Authority.
b$6,732 m. of 36 statutory authorities in Delfin Digest.
c$8,997 m. are Commonwealth Government, $6 m. are private domestic.

Source: 1967 Delfin Digest and 1968 Yearbook of Australia.

190

Sydney companies control the largest amount of assets, almost
$13,000 million (Figure 29). Again, Melbourne companies rank a respect-
able second. Assets show Canberra to be far more important than when
measured by number of head offices. This importance is almost exclu-
sively through the Commonwealth Government, rather than private companies
as for Sydney and Melbourne. One-fifth of all assets are assigned to
overseas control. Several nations are represented so that no one city
can be considered a serious rival for decision-making importance.
Foreign control of almost $10,000 million in assets denies their import-
ance to Australian cities. Thus, only 9 per cent of the assets remain
to be divided among the smaller capitals and other cities and country
towns. Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart all have more of their
assets in State Government statutory authorities than in private domes-
tic companies. The individual weakness of each of these cities is in
marked contrast to the strength of Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra.

The number of employees controlled from Australian cities is
a weighted measure as is assets. Employment is a more inclusive measure
because all civilian and military personnel of the Federal Government,
all State Government staffs, plus the private domestic and foreign
employees of the Delfin companies are included. Data for these persons
can be compared with the total Australian work force whereas no total
is available for all Australian assets (Figure 30). The Delfin companies,
which include a number of large State and Federal employers, represent
about 27 per cent of the nation's work force. By adding the remaining
Government employees, about 42 per cent of the national total is

included, over 2,000,000. Decision-making measured by this expanded

191

 

 

 

   

Delfin private
domestic
763,100
15.7% ii
b E Tote]
Remainder , 570,000 1 State
‘————*“ “’—“ Gov'ts.
2,797,400 I} 11°7%
54.9% '*
Total
Federal
(Estimatec GOV t-
Delfin
undisclosed
130,000) \2 7 355...... Delfin foreign
TOTAL: 2,059,100
42.4%

 

 

a Figure 30. Control of segments of the Australian work force
in l966.

aAt 1966 Census, 4,856,500 persons.

bIncludes non-Delfin private domestic and foreign, plus 99,000 local gov-
ernment employees.

c0f the 907 Delfin companies, 136 did not disclose the number of their
employees. Eighteen were in the first four Echelons. The remaining

118 were Fifth Echelon, with an estimated average of 1,000 employees
each. Most of these firms have head offices in Sydney or Melbourne.

Source: Yearbook of Australia 1968 and 1967 Delfin Digest.

192

figure affects over two-fifths rather than just a quarter of national
employment.

Companies and State Governments in Melbourne and Sydney
control about 500,000 employees from each city (Figure 31). Melbourne's
lead of about 18,000 personnel is not as impressive as Sydney's larger

dominance of head offices and assets.1

Canberra is assigned control of
all Commonwealth employees, 414,000. This figure ranks it third, ahead
of the employees of all foreign companies, and also far ahead of all
the remaining capitals and cities in Australia. Again, the importance
of State Government versus private domestic companies in the lesser
capitals is evident in the employment measure as it was for assets.
Australia has three decision-making centers when all three
measures are viewed together. Sydney and Melbourne dominate the private
sector as approximately equal rivals with Sydney having somewhat greater
importance than Melbourne. Canberra is a third center for economic
decision-making because of the importance of the Commonwealth Government

rather than through private companies. No other Australian city is a

serious competitor to these three; neither is any foreign city.

Overall Comparisons of Spatial Impact2

By definition a top level decision-making center has an

extensive nodal region encompassing cities of lower economic function.

 

1The difference might even reverse if the undisclosed employees
of 136 Delfin companies were known.

2This spatial analysis concerns only the 907 Delfin companies.
It does not include the Reserve Bank, PM-G Department, or Snowy Mountain
Authority because of lack of data on the establishments of these govern-
ment units.

193

 

TOTAL EMPLOYEES
2,059,l00

   
 
       

  
       
    
    
 

00 0
414 000 000088 69 . l %
’ 000 ‘
000000

rne . .
Malbou 20.l% OOOO ,Efia.
513 400 — 0000000 00. ' oooooooooooooooooo

’ 1 0 8800099 ”ofifikfifififi3fifiil

25% - 00000000fi33$§$§$§$§$§3§$§3i

80080 O 0I':.:::;:;:;:;:°.'.-.-.-.-.'.-.°.°.°.°.°.°.'.;.;.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

7 -

___________——_———4————_—_— -
# .-,;- ----
____——————————-———'—'_' 1'- ooooooooo

24%————————————— . oooooooooo
—_—_———_—————' '
__________—————
1

.........
0000000000
000000000
.........
OOOOOOOOO
.........
000000000
000000000
.........
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
000000000000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00000000000000
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
000000000000
...........
...........

  

 

 

 

 

 

______ Sydney ~4g§§§5 84.3%
EEE' 495,700 ‘
Adelaide
24% 104,000
5.1%
? Brisbane
; l04,300
Private : 5.1%
Domestic //// I
State .
Government Other Hobart A+B+P+H+0
Authoritiesb Egg; 20,400 26,100
1% 1.2% 323,500
Commonwealth 00’ 15 7%
Government ; '
Foreignd ’

 

 

 

Figure 31. Location of control of 2,000,000 employees of 910
major companies and government organizations.a

a907 Delfin companies, PM-G, Reserve Bank, Snowy Mountain Authority.
570,000 total employees of all six State Governments.

c413,600 are Commonwealth Government, civilian (292,200) and military
(121,400). Only 400 are private domestic of two firms.

dAll assigned to overseas ultimate control.

Source: 1967 Delfin Digest and 1968 Yearbook of Australia.

 

194

The analyses in preceding chapters have shown that Sydney, Melbourne,
and Canberra have large nodal regions which are nationwide in expanse.
The decision-making function of Delfin companies headquartered in other
capital cities is spatially restricted in its areal impact. These
smaller Cities are not dominant even in their own states. The following
summarizes the measures of spatial impact for the various cities.

Half of the Delfin companies operate on a nationwide scale.
One-quarter have establishments in two to four states and a quarter
Operate locally or only in one state. 0f the national companies, Sydney
and Melbourne demonstrate strong leadership (Table 45, National Columns).
Foreign companies control a somewhat larger number of these wide ranging
enterprises than does either Sydney or Melbourne. Only thirty-four
nationally operating companies are headquartered in the remaining state
capitals and cities.

In monetary terms $29,000 million of the Delfin assets are
controlled by national companies, a much larger share than the number
of companies. Multi-state regional firms are where the percentage of
assets are noticeably less than the percentage of firms. Intrastate
and local companies have roughly equal shares of both companies and
assets (Table 45).

Large assets emphasize two contrasting facts. One is the
concentration of large national companies in Sydney and Melbourne. The
other is the decidedly intrastate or local impact of firms headquartered
in the other capitals, especially State Government statutory authorities.
The assets of Commonwealth Government authorities, most notably the

Commonwealth Banking Corporation, account for 14 per cent of Delfin

1 955

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 45. Summary of 907 Delfin companies and assets by area of operations. (Foreign and Commonwealth
Gov't. grouped separately.)
4, 3, or 2 Intrastate
T°t°1 National States and Local
City
No. Assets No. Assets No. Assets No. Assets
of M. of S M. of S M. of S M.
Co. and 1 Co. and 1 Co. and 1 Co. and %
Sydney 262 12,895 125 9,334 65 821 72 2,740
31% 32% 21 l/2% 33%
Melbourne 215 10,367 115 6,794 73 1,395 27 2,178
25% 23% 36 1/2% 26%
Commw. Govta 8 4.133 7 4.121 -- -- 1 12
10% 70% ..
Sydney +
Melbourne + 485 27,395 247 20,249 138 2,216 100 4,930
Commw. Govt. 66% 70% 58% 59%
Adelaide 48 1,765 16 569 13 133 19 1,063
4% 2% 3 1/2% 13%
Brisbane 35 878 6 74 9 88 20 716
2% .. 2% 8 1/2%
Perth 24 630 l 11 8 91 15 528
2% .. 2 1/2% 6%
Hobart 10 402 -- -- -- -- 10 402
1% %
Other 42 385 4 44 8 56 30 285
1% .. 1 1/2% 3 l/2%
A+8+P+H+0 159 4.060 27 698 38 368 94 2,994
10% 2% 9 l/2% 36%
Total 644 31,455 274 20,947 176 2,584 194 7,924
Domestic 76% 72% 67 1/2% 95%
263 9,808 164 8,136 67 1,239 32 433
F°’°‘9" 24% 28% 32 1/2% 5%
Total Delfin 907 $41,263 438 $29,083 243 $3,823 226 $8.357
perc’"“9' °' 48% 71x 27x 9: 25: 20%

Delfin

 

aThe PM-G, Reserve Bank, and Snowy Mountain Auth. would add $4,864 millions in assets.

Source:

Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest.

196

company assets in the national column. Thus, Sydney, Melbourne, and
Canberra control 70 per cent of the assets of nationally operating
companies. By almost any analysis of these data, one is drawn to the
conclusion that a relatively small number of all Australian companies
control huge assets and dominate the national economic structure. The
CAO's of these firms in Sydney and Melbourne are joined by the Common-
wealth Government in Canberra as the foci of decision-making for the
entire nation. Top level decisions are disseminated via a nationwide
network of offices and processing and distribution establishments
through and within which those decisions are implemented.

The productive output of Australia comes from a myriad of
farms, mines, mills, and factories. The Delfin companies control over
4,300 processing units which must be regarded as including most of the
larger mining and manufacturing establishments, as well as many critical
smaller ones. Companies headquartered in Sydney and Melbourne control
two-thirds of these units so basic to the nation's economic well being
(Figure 32). Not only does each city control about half of the pro-
cessing units in its own state, but together they control half or more
of such units in all other states.

When the one-quarter of processing units which are foreign
controlled are removed from the Delfin total only a slender 10 per cent
remains to be divided among the other state capitals and lesser cities.
Control of production in Australia is highly centralized into two cities.

The location of control and spatial pattern of the 23,000
total Delfin establishments repeat and support the pattern of processing

units. These thousands of shops, offices, and other commercial

197

ELF"! PROCESSIK
ESTABLISHENTS

% 4.351

3%
3

551

SHABPOF

 

 

 

 

PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENTS
SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE CONTROL

 

O 500

 

Figure 32. The percentage of each state's Delfin processing
establishments controlled from Sydney and Melbourne together.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

 

198

establishments are more widespread throughout the states, being found

diffused in the metropolitan centers, in the large and small country
towns, and in the rural areas. They fill in the spaces between the
capital cities, as well as fill out and cater to the needs of the
metropolitan areas. Sydney and Melbourne dominate as equals by this
measure, each having about 7,300 units or a combined 62 per cent.
Total foreign establishments account for an added 23 per cent leaving
only 15 per cent for all other cities most of which are intrastate or

local, rather than interstate (Figure 33).

A Centrally Directed National Economy

 

In modern, industrialized, commercial exchange economies such
as Australia's, the concentration of CAO's and top level economic
decision-making are key indicators of the centralization of control of
economic activity. If control of a nation's industry and commerce is
centralized, then the structure of the nation's economy is likely to
be more cohesive than fragmented. The identification and determination
of the major decision-making centers and their nodal regions measure
the extent of centralization of direction and control in the Australian
economy.

A geographic analysis of the central administrative offices
of the Delfin companies and government authorities leads to the con-
clusion that Australia has a centrally directed economy. There are
three centers of top level decision-making, Sydney, Melbourne, and
Canberra. However, these centers do not divide the nation into mutually

exclusive nodal regions. Rather, they all have coextensive nationwide

199

TOTAL KLFII
ESTABLISHEIITS

% 23,414
igggsssgf

 

 

SHABPOF

. &

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS my: 0 , >1

SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE woman: 5 " ' ' ° ’
(RONTRmn.

° 0
o 500 \R‘KJJ
a:-
SHABPHOF

MILES

 

Figure 33. The percentage of each state's total Delfin establish-
ments controlled from Sydney and Melbourne together.

Source: Compiled from 1967 Delfin Digest, Universal Business Directories,
and telephone directories.

200

impact. The national economic structure is not fragmented since there
are no less-than-national regions focusing on these or any other state
capital. It is uncommon for three centers to share the tOpmost decision-
making function for an entire nation.

Corporate and governmental head offices are found in small
numbers in Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart. However, the small
number of such CAO's and their limited areal impact are not sufficient
to create decision-making centers nor distinct regions that rival the
national leaders. Just the reverse is true. Through their establish-
ments and employees in all states, Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra
dominate the economic decision-making not only for New South Wales and
Victoria but also for South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia,
Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory;
in short, all of Australia. Centrality and economic cohesiveness
result from economic activity in all states being dominantly influenced
and directed from national centers rather than from regional focal
points. With few exceptions, state owned railroad and electric utilities
being outstanding, most of the main industrial and commercial groups
are organized nationally and controlled nationally.

The three major centers compete nationally over the same
area. They do not compete frontally on the margins of mutually exclu-
sive regions. Sydney and Melbourne being the centers of private
corporate decision-making and CAO's are complemented by Canberra which
serves as the center for national governmental economic decision-making.
Canberra in its short history has eclipsed the older, more populous

state capitals for this important function. The Federal capital has

201

attracted few corporate head offices. Indeed, the Commonwealth
Government is still in the process of transferring departmental head
offices to Canberra from their "temporary" locations in Melbourne.

As a contrast to the national regions for decision-making,
the following map shows how Australia is fragmented at the more tangible
level of wholesaling (Figure 34). The size of states, the overall size
of the continent, and the overall spatial distribution and concentra-
tions of population are such that the wholesaling function is not
concentrated only in the major cities in each state. There are several
wholesaling centers and regions in most states, some crossing state
boundaries, most notably Adelaide's region. The wholesaling establish-
ments for these regions are found concentrated in the larger country
towns as well as in the state capitals. Wholesaling in Australia tends
to create a pattern of economic activity fragmented at less than the
state level.

Wholesale centers are linked by the various transportation
media to transshipment centers, the next level in the hierarchy of
economic functions (Philbrick, 1957, 327). This is the highest level
where tangible linkages connect nodal points. The flow of goods over
railroads, highways, air routes, and shipping lanes connect the trans-
shipment centers to each other and to lower order wholesale and retail
places which make up their nodal regions. These regions more closely
correspond to states in their areal extent because in Australia the
capital cities are the principal or only transshipment center in each

state (Figure 35).1

1The map of transshipment centers and their regions is based
upon extensive field work and analysis of the wholesaling, transportation,

 

 

202

WHOLESALE REGIONS
AND CENTERS

O 500
m

Unlnhobe-Qd
r e —

 

WHOLESALE CENTER
AND REGION

0 LOCAL WHOLESALE PLACE
0 Launceston
HOBART

Figure 34. Wholesale centers and their tributary nodal regions.
Local wholesale places perform some wholesaling function for themselves
and nearby retail centers but are not dominant for this function and can
not be classified as wholesale centers.

 

Source: Unpublished research of author on the areal functional organiza-
tion of Australia. This map is based upon information from inter-
views with personnel of major wholesaling firms, numerous retail-
ers, and transportation authorities in all major cities and country
towns. These interviews were augmented by extensive field observa-
tions and detailed analysis of wholesaling establishments listed
1363a19651ties and towns in the Universal Business Directories of

203

TRANSSHIPMENT REGIONS
AND CENTERS

O 500
m

TOWNSVILLE
S

O
O
I
->‘:~.
’ l
C
I

 

v PERTH—JREMANTLE

TRANSSHIPMENT CENTER
AND REGION

 

Figure 35. Transshipment centers and their tributary nodal
regions.

Source: See Footnote 1, page 201.

204

These two highly visible levels of economic activity and
organization might lead one to conclude that Australia has a fragmented
economic structure focused upon each state capital. At the levels of
the tangible linkages and actual flows of goods this could be a possible
conclusion. However, it is one which does not include the intangible
linkages of ownership, control, and top level decision-making which are
equally, if not more, important in understanding the structure of the
nation's economy. These linkages, because they are intangibles, are
not as visible in the landscape. Yet, they are the means by which
Australia can and does function as a single national economic region.
Top level decisions and control from central administrative offices make
the tangible movement of goods through transshipment, wholesale, and
retail places possible. National companies and Commonwealth organiza-
tions direct and facilitate the flows between transshipment regions as
well as within them. The state capitals serve as regional centers for
the branch offices of the multi-establishment national companies. Link-
ages from them to head offices in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra tie
the nation into a complex interconnected whole.

It is concluded from this geographic analysis that Australia

has a centrally directed, national structure of economic organization.

 

and transshipment functions in Australia. It reflects a composite of
several transport media unlike the Atlas of Australian Resources map of
"Ports and Shipping" which indicates hinterlands for Australian ports
only. That map is the only attempt at a nodal regionalization of
Australian known to this author. Regionalizations reflecting homogeneity
of economic activity are more common, e.g., Robinson (1960), Spate
(1968), and McKnight (1970).

205

This structure focuses simultaneously on three decision-making centers
which have coextensive nationwide regions. There are no less-than-
national regions for the top level function although such smaller regions

exist for the wholesaling and transshipment function.

The "Financial Center" of Australia

 

In addition to determining the centralization of the crucial
decision-making function in the Australian economy, the analysis of the
Delfin companies provides information directly relevant to the question
of which city is the "financial center" of Australia. Much of the
Australian press and many lay persons believe Melbourne is. Their
belief is nurtured in large measure by the presence in Melbourne of
Australia's two leading share brokers and underwriters, J. B. Were and

Son1

and Ian Potter and Company. These two firms are leaders in the
organization of' capital for investment in both private and public
enterprises. They have dominated the underwriting of most of Australia's
share and bond issues.

If the term "financial center" is defined in a narrow sense
as the city where money is organized for investment, then Melbourne may
lay claim to the title. However, if the "financial center" is more
broadly defined as the city where large amounts of investment capital

originate, where other capital for consumer credit, commercial and

consumer mortgages, and development financing is controlled, and the

 

1The long history of this firm and its contributions to Mel-
bourne's financial importance are told in the firm's biography, Ihg_
House of Were (Ellis, 1954).

 

206

city which dominates the banking and insurance industries, then Sydney
has a more valid claim as the "financial center" of the nation. This
city has all of these attributes. Data on the Delfin companies show
that private domestic, State, and Commonwealth enterprises headquartered
in Sydney control $19,000 million in assets compared with Melbourne's
domestic control of $12,000 million. Both figures exclude foreign con-
trol but include the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth
Banking Corporation for Sydney and the large assets of the Postmaster-

] It has been shown in earlier

General's Department for Melbourne.
chapters that much more of Sydney's assets are held in more liquidable
forms by banks, insurance houses, and other financial and investment
holding companies. The assets of Melbourne based companies are more in
the manufacturing sector, in the less liquidable forms of machinery,
buildings, and other capital goods. Other factors add validity to
Sydney's claim. The value and volume of trading on the Sydney Stock
Exchange exceeds those measures for the Melbourne Exchange. Sydney has
the only commodity exchange in any city in Australia, the Sydney Greasy
Wool Futures Exchange. The city is rapidly pulling abreast of Melbourne

as an organizer of investment capital through the aggressive activities

of an increasing number of underwriters and investment banking houses.

 

1If foreign controlled assets were included under a broad
interpretation, then Sydney has $22,000 million assets and Melbourne is
still second with $18,000 million.

2It is ironic that Sydney companies for years sought invest-
ment capital using the services of Melbourne-based J. B. Here and Son
or Ian Potter and then often received this capital from Sydney investors
and institutions through these Melbourne brokers. It attests to these
firms stature, expertise, and strength in the financial community, and

207

The number, diversity, and size of financial firms and their large
assets buttress this author's belief that Sydney is the true financial
center of Australia. The city's financial role complements and is a
part of its larger role as the leading decision-making center. Together
these roles have many ramifications for the continuing competition

between Sydney and Melbourne.

 

the paucity (until recently) of serious competition from Sydney broker-
underwriter houses.

CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSIONS

This geographic study of Australia has sought answers to two
related questions about the spatial pattern of that nation's economic
structure. Those questions as posed in the Introduction are: What
comparative roles do the major Australian cities have as decision-
making centers in producing regions of national dominance? Secondly,
does Australia have a centrally directed economy? Three hypotheses
have been tested in seeking answers to these questions. The foregoing
analysis is the basis for the following conclusions about those hypothe-

SES.

Conclusions

 

The first hypothesis examined concerns the role of Australian
cities.
1. It is hypothesized that the urban functional hierarchy
of Australian cities culminates in a decision-making
center, or centers, having nationwide economic dominance
through the concentration of central administrative
offices.
From the detailed examination of companies and cities, it is concluded
that the urban functional hierarchy in Australia has three decision-

making centers with nationwide economic importance rather than only

208

209

one such center. Sydney must be considered as Australia's most important
center based on its strength in number of CAO's, assets, and employees.
Regardless of interpretation of the location of ultimate control of
foreign and Commonwealth Government enterprises, Sydney has the largest
number of companies and assets, and is a close contender to Melbourne
for control of private and government employees. In a composite view
of all three measures Sydney is clearly the most dominant center. Its
strength is broadly based in all industrial sectors and is especially
strong in tertiary activities through banking, insurance, and other
financial groups. This strength results in Sydney being considered by
this author as the financial center of Australia.

Melbourne is Australia's second decision-making center. It
is a strong rival to Sydney, most notably in the manufacturing sector
and through control of a very large work force. Its assets are large
under any interpretation, the moreso if broadly interpreted. Melbourne's
leadership in the employment control measure, yet its ranking second in
assets, number of companies, and in a composite of all three, illustrates
the validity of using more than one index to measure the function of
decision-making.

Canberra ranks as a third decision-making center when a strict
interpretation is made of the measures of assets and employee control.
Number of companies is not a true measure for this city because its
importance is not through private companies but rather through the
Commonwealth Government. Assets would be a better measure if all Common-
wealth Government assets were known and on a comparable accounting basis

with private companies. The best measure for the capital is employment.

210

The Federal Government is Australia's largest employer. Government
decision-making gives Canberra national importance. Considering the
economic aspects of political and social decisions that also emanate
from the capital, it ranks favorably with the other two centers.
Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart have elements of private
and State Government decision-making. However, on a proportionate
basis of any of the measures of CAO's, these cities individually or
collectively are very weak when compared with Sydney, Melbourne, and
Canberra. The Delfin measures do not warrant classifying any one of
them as a decision-making center. They all have some regional import-
ance in their respective states mostly through the impact of State
Government decisions affecting economic activities. The private sector
as evidenced in the Delfin list is small for these cities even when
measured against their State Government assets and employees. Sydney
and Melbourne dominate much of the private economic activity in all
states.
The second hypothesis examined the spatial impact of the
decision-making centers.
2. It is hypothesized that Australian capital cities are
the nodal points of a hierarchy of functional regions
culminating in a nationwide economic region coextensive
with the national political boundaries.
It is concluded that there are three decision-making centers with
coextensive and competitive nationwide economic decision-making regions.
These are nodal regions which are focused on Sydney, Melbourne, and

Canberra simultaneously through different sets of corporate and

211

government networks of establishments. The several measures of spatial
impact derived from the Delfin data indicate the national importance
of central administrative offices and decision-making centered in Sydney
and Melbourne which exceeds what might be expected from these cities'
shares of the national population or work force. Canberra's nationwide
region is indicated through its pattern of federal employees and
establishments. The assets of a number of important Commonwealth enter-
prises which operate nationally rank Canberra a very respectable third
to Sydney and Melbourne by this measure.

The national regions of these three cities overshadow the
weak one-state influence of Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and Hobart so
much so that these lesser cities are not considered the principal foci
for economic decision-making in their own states. Thus, there are no
less-than-national regions that reduce the spatial extent of the
decision-making function focused on Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra.
There are, however, lower order functional nodal regions for the trans-
shipment and wholesaling functions which focus on the smaller capitals
and other cities and towns and which are decidedly less-than-national
in extent.

The conclusions about the regions and decision-making roles
of Australian cities lead to answering the question on the central
direction of the Australian economy, which was the third hypothesis
investigated.

3. It is hypothesized that Australia has a centrally directed,

national economy.

212

The existence of three coextensive national regions and the absence of
any less-than-national decision-making regions are the basis for the
conclusion that Australia has a centrally directed national economic
structure. It derives from the concentration of CAO's and the spatial
impact of top level decision-making which is centralized for the nation
in Sydney and Melbourne for the private sector and in Canberra for much
of the government sector. The function is not fragmented among all
state capitals with regions of only statewide extent. The geographic
pattern is one of conterminous nationwide regions within which economic
activity is directed from national, not regional, centers. The lower
order wholesale and transshipment cities and regions are sub-sets in
the overall pattern of centrality. Linkages occur among these lower
order regions because of companies and government enterprises which
operate nationally rather than just regionally. The national pattern
of the linkages of decision, control, and ownership give Australia a
unified rather than a fragmented economic structure.

The non-availability of data on actual decisions had made it
necessary for this study to use surrogate indicators of the location,
relative importance, and spatial extent of the decision-making function.
Central administrative offices in which the function is known to occur,
and the assets and employees controlled as measures of the importance
of those head offices, at best result in only relative comparisons of
Australian cities. But those measures are better than none at all for
this topmost economic function. Availability of data on assets of all

State and Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities would have

213

sharpened the precision of the measurement.1 Such data would have

given a better measure of the relative roles of private versus govern-
mental economic activities than just the data on employees do. Data
from the Integrated Economic Censuses taken in 1969 pertaining to enter-
prises are not yet available at the time of this writing. Such informa-
tion about assets would be valuable for comparing the Delfin sample
against national totals, as was done for the employee measure in this
study. However, government restrictions against disclosure of confident-
ial information about individual companies may seriously reduce the
usefulness of these census data. Probably the most serious limitations
of this present study is the non-availability of data on the geographic
distribution of assets and employees, even aggregated at the state
level. Such data would have enhanced the precision of measuring the
spatial importance of the various companies which was not possible with
the data on numbers of processing and total establishments alone. Even
with all of these various limitations it is felt that this study has
made a contribution to the understanding of the geography of Australia.

It is preliminary to a number of related research topics.

Basis for Other Studies

This study has concerned itself with the topmost establishments
and function in the hierarchy of areal functional organization. They

are the central administrative offices of major corporations and

1Fortune magazine prepared an annual report of the Federal
Government of {He United States in its May, 1973 issue (Fortune, 1973).
Similar reports on the Australian Commonwealth and State Governments
would have been most useful for this study.

214

government enterprises, and decision-making centers and regions. There
is a need to more completely detail the nature of the hierarchy as it
exists in Australia. Such was the original intent of this author, but
it proved to be a more extensive task than was appropriate for the dis-
sertation. However, much of the basic analysis has been done and,
although not directly included here, it has given greater insight to
this present study of the decision-making function at the pinnacle of
the hierarchy of economic organization.

A second avenue of research will be to further explore why
Australia's private sector of decision-makers and their head offices are
concentrated in two centers and not just one which is characteristic of
many of the world's nations. The political decision which placed the
Commonwealth capital at Canberra and thereby denying its importance to
either Sydney or Melbourne is an obvious influence on their continued
rivalry. It is believed there are other economic and social factors
that favored the simultaneous growth of the two cities. The location
of head offices within these two cities and the answers to why such
internal patterns exist may provide clues to the broader question of
why there are two rather than one major centers.

This present study is an analysis of the geography of decision-
making in Australia at a particular point in time, the mid 1960's. It
is also a study of certain static implications of the decision-making
control of assets and employees and their ties to a few central locations.
As such, it can serve as a point of reference for two other studies.
First, how has or will the geographic structure of the economy change

with time--both from earlier and later view points? Second, what are

215

the dynamic rather than static aspects of the process of decision-making
in a geographic context? How does the function create a spatially cen—
tralized system rather than serve as a measure of the system at a

specific point in time?

Value to Applied Geography_

 

This study of decision-making centers in Australia has practi-
cal value for businessmen and the Commonwealth and State Governments.

For the corporate executives, foreign or domestic, charged with the
decision of where to locate their company's head office in Australia,

it provides information on the number, size, and kind of other major
head offices located in each of the various major cities. Australia
provides a choice of locations unlike many nations which have only one
dominant primate city. The very presence of the opportunity to choose
which city would be best for a given company's head office means that
its executives should have the fullest information upon which to make
their decision. Part of that information should include the head office
location of companies that they may be dealing with or competing against.
Proximity to other executives is a powerful attractive force for many
executives.

On the other hand, some entrepreneurs may find the relative
paucity of head offices and, therefore, of other corporate top level
personnel, advantageous to their operations in some of the smaller
capitals. The fact that crucial decisions of competitors may have to
be made by top management a continent away gives the local decision-maker

certain advantages of time and first-hand knowledge. This study, and

216

others like it would also be valuable to the applied geographer who is
studying where new head offices might be best located. Industrial
location and retail location have been studied at some length by geo-
graphers. Corporate head offices and regional branch offices have
received very little attention.

Companies seeking investment or credit capital should find
the information useful that Sydney firms control more varied and rela-
tively more liquidable assets than their Melbourne counterparts. Such
companies may be more inclined to seek that money through Sydney under-
writers and brokers.

The Commonwealth Government may find this study useful in its
deliberations on the control of the nation's economy by foreign companies.
So often such deliberations concentrate on the manufacturing or mining
sectors of the nation's economy and do not consider the fuller range of
economic activities in the primary and tertiary sectors, including
government enterprises. Conversely State Governments should find this
study supports their contention of too much centralization of power by
the Federal Government in Canberra. Even though the information is
somewhat dated and certainly not complete because of lack of data on
assets, it does provide a benchmark against which to measure more recent
data and thereby suggest the trend of centralization of government power.

The debate in Australia is intensifying on the issue of

centralizing government powers in Federal hands, and control over
natural resources. The Liberal Premier of Victoria, Mr. Rupert
Hamer, said last weekend that endless legal conflicts between
Canberra and the states would flow from legislation claiming
Federal Government jurisdiction over off-shore areas. The Premier

said the Senate had acted correctly when it blocked the proposed
off-shore legislation.

217

In Brisbane, the Queensland Treasurer, Sir Gordon Chalk, . . .
said Queensland was being held back by what he called the social-
istic policies of the Federal Labor Government (Australian Weekly
News, May 31, 1973).

The State Governments in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart

might consider the information on the limited number and importance of
head offices of major companies in their capitals as a challenge to more
vigorously pursue these key establishments, not just their processing

or distribution units. Perth, for instance, has been recently success-
ful in getting the Australian management office of the overseas con-
trolled Mount Newman Mines. This is a major company involved in the
development of the huge iron ore resources in northwestern Australia.

The Federal Government might find the centralization of pri-

vate corporate decision-making in Sydney and Melbourne documented in
this study a spur to its own centralization of economic power at
Canberra. Although Federal Parliament and Cabinet exercise ultimate
control, much important decision-making is in fact done in the head
offices of departments still headquartered in Melbourne. The transfer

of the Postmaster-General's Department would at one stroke enhance

significantly Canberra's role.

Value to Economic and Urban Geography

In addition to the applied values there are others of concern
to the geographic profession. Economic and urban geographers should
find this study useful. It has employed corporate data in a manner
not commonly used, jggg_the analysis and comparison of centers within
a hierarchy of functional centers and regions. Such data can be used

for other than the top level decision-making function. The measurement

218

elements, companies and their head offices, assets, employees, and

establishments have generally not been studied or used as entities by
geographers. More traditionally geographic research has been concerned
with employees, or factories, or retail outlets, or other establishments
grouped by location or industry rather than as enterprises and the

parts thereof. Yet, the industrial societies of the world are largely
organized and operated by large and small companies. Their spatial
influence is increasing rather than diminishing. Government enterprises
are their counterparts in many developing nations.

The method of this study provides a means for the better
understanding of spatial organization in both urban and economic geo-
graphy. Through beaded linkages within multi-establishment firms,
space is organized into nodal regions. Focal centers develop from the
hierarchical concentration of linkages upon a relatively few favored
locations from many other widespread places. This is an approach that
adds to the principles of areal functional organization as developed
by Philbrick. The method also complements the main body of central
place theory which has largely been concerned with the lower order
economic functions of retailing and wholesaling and the bi-polar link-
ages between consumer and retailer, or retailer and wholesaler. Central
place studies have not generally employed the continuous, intangible,
beaded linkages of decision-making, control, and ownership. Nor, have
such studies analyzed higher order centers above those connected by
the tangible flow of goods and services.

Economic geographers could well devote more attention to the

spatial significance of large corporations. Their CAO's exhibit an

219

increasing concentration of decision-making and control over major
segments of the environment. This study is only a beginning in that
direction. More directly related to this research would be similar
studies of the location and geographic concentration of central admin-
istrative offices and decision-making in other nations. Of particular
interest to this author are several countries where there is not a
clear cut primate city such as London or Paris. A number of nations
with competing decision-making centers are former British colonial
areas. Some have large areas, others are much smaller. Large and small
populations are both represented. Canada has many obvious comparisons
to be made with Australia. Toronto, Montreal, and the compromise
capital at Ottawa are counterparts to Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra.
New Zealand has Auckland and Wellington sharing the decision-making
function. Capetown and Johannesburg, South Africa are another pair for
study. The United States provides an excellent area for historical as
well as contemporary analysis of the location of top level economic
decision-making in New York, Washington, Boston, and Philadelphia. On
a regional basis, the state of California is worthy of analysis of the
relative strengths of San Francisco, Los Angeles, the political capital
at Sacramento, and out-of-state influences. India provides an Asian
culture with a British overprint. The question here would be how do
New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras function as national and
regional centers.

There are other countries not having a British colonial heri-
tage. Japan, very young industrially but with many large corporations,

has the rival centers of Tokyo and Osaka. The future of West Germany

220

with the capital at Bonn and no single obvious private sector decision-
making center, also invites analysis of interest to the political, as
well as economic, geographer. What are the future implications of the
rather recent creation of Brazilia on the roles and strengths of 883'
Paulo and Rio de Janiero? The governments, businessmen, and citizens
of these nations could benefit from detailed investigations of the
location of top level decision-making that affects the very roots of
their national economies.

Above the national level of decision-making there exists an
almost untouched realm for geographic inquiry into the location and
spatial implications of multi-national corporations. This present
study has indicated that such giants of worldwide industry, commerce,
and finance have substantial influence on the economy of Australia.

The identification and broader geographic assessment of the few hundred
or so major multi-national companies is a task that awaits geographic

analysis.

Postulations

 

The conclusion that Sydney is the true financial center of
Australia leads to postulations about the future role of this city.
In 1966 Sydney led Melbourne in the measures of the decision-making
function by varying degrees. Sydney's greater importance in the tert-
iary sector of the economy, rather than the manufacturing sector where
assets are controlled more from Melbourne, gives it a great flexibility
in maintaining and possibly enhancing its lead as a decision-making

center. Melbourne will lose some of this function as the remaining

221

Federal departments are transferred to Canberra. These moves likely
will be followed by a number of national offices of trade unions and
other politically concerned associations, again, more to the detriment
of Melbourne than Sydney and certainly to the enhancement of Canberra.

It is postulated that because of such foreseeable events Sydney
will increase its position vis-a-vis Melbourne as a decision-making
center. Canberra, through the expanding role of the Federal Government
will narrow the separation with Melbourne from the opposite direction.

It is not likely that Melbourne will lose its role as a national center
to Sydney and Canberra to the extent that has occurred for Adelaide,
Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart. Because of its entrenched position, Mel-
bourne will continue to be a national center but relatively less influ-
ential than Sydney and more closely rivaled by Canberra.

It appears that the greatest challenges to the existing tri-
partite decision-making centers for continued influence in the nation's
economy will come from external forces in the form of multi-national
corporations as well as from internal competition among the three
cities. If not carried to excess, both forms of competition should favor

the continued strengthening of a dynamic economy in Australia.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Australia Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, Official
Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1968 Canberra:
Commonwealth Government Printer, 1969).

 

Australia Department of National Development, Regional Development
Division, Atlas of Australian Resources (Canberra: Second
Series 1962--).

 

Australia Prime Minister's Department, Commonwealth of Australia Dir-
ectory, 1966 (Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer,
1966).

 

 

Australian Financial Review (1963-1968).

 

Australian Financial Review's Directory of the TOP 800 Australian Com-
panies (Sydney: John Fairfax and Sons, 1963).

 

Australian News and Information Bureau, Australia in Facts and Figures
No. 99, Sept. 1968 (Canberra: Australian News and Infbrma-
tion Bureau, 1968).

 

 

Australian Weekly News, January 18, 1973 (San Francisco:
Australian Consulate-General, 1973).

 

Australian Weekly News, May 31, 1973 (San Francisco: Aus-
tralian Consulate-General, l973).

Beaujeu-Garnier, Jacqueline, and Chabot, Georges. Urban Geography_
(London: Longmans, Green, 1967), Ch. 29.

 

Block, R. 0. Ed., Delfin Digest 1965 (Sydney: Development Finance
Corporation, 1965).

 

, and Seldon, R. G. Ed's., Delfin Di est 1967: The Top Com-
panies in Australia, New Zealand an South East Asia (Sydney:
DevElOpment Finance Corporation, 1967).

 

 

Borchert, J. R., and Adams, R. B. "Trade Centers and Trade Areas of
the Upper Midwest," Upper Midwest Economic Study, Urban
Report No. 3 (Minneapolis, 1963).

 

Bushnell, J. A. Australian Company Mergers 1946-1959 (Melbourne: Mel-
bourne University Press, 1961).

222

223
(The) Busiqgss)Who's Who of Australia 1970-1971 (Sydney: R. G. Riddell,
7 .

Campbell, E. W. The Sixty_Rich Families Who Own Australia (Sydney:
Current BOoks, 1963).

Cowan, Peter, et al. The Office: A Facet of Urban Growth (London:
Heinemann, 1969).

Dickinson, Robert E. City and Region: A Geographical Interpretation
(London: Routledge and—Regal Paul, 1964).

Duncan, 0. D., et al. Metropolis and Region (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, l960).

 

Ellis, A. T. Ed., The House of Were 1839-1954 (Melbourne: J. B. Were
and Son, 1954).

 

Fortune. "The Fortune Directory: The 200 Largest Industrials Outside
the U. S." (Sept. 1967), pp. 140-146.

. "An Annual Report for the Federal Government," (May 1973),
pp. 193-199.

Goodwin, William. "The Management Center in the United States," Ggg:
graphical Review, Vol. 55 (1965), pp. 1-16.

 

Gottman, Jean. Megalgpolis (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1964).

 

"Urban Centrality and the Interweaving of Quaternary Activi-
ties," Ekistics, Vol. 29 (1970), pp. 322-331.

Hewitt, Don. Interviews Sept. 1963. Manager, Cullity Timber, Perth,
Western Australia.

Hopkins, H. H. Interview June 1963. Alderman, Townsville, Queensland
and Chairman of the People the North Committee.

Jefferson, Mark. "The Law of the Primate City," Geographical Review,
Vol. 29 (1939), pp. 226-232.

Johnston, R. J. "Commercial Leadership in Australia," The Australian
Geographer, Vol. 10 (1966), pp. 49-52.

 

Karmel, P. H., and Brunt, Maureen. The Structure of the Australian
Economy (Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire, 1963).

Keuning, H. J. "Approaching Economic Geography from the Point of View
of the Enterprise," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geographie, Vol. 51 (1960), pp. 201-205.

 

224

Koezod, Alex. Interview January 1964. American economist and Fulbright
Fellow. Canberra.

Krumme, Gunter. “Towards a Geo raphy of Enterprise," Economic Geo-
graphy, Vol. 45 (1969), pp. 1-29.

Lundberg, Ferdinand. The Rich and the Super-Rich (New York: Lyle
Stuart, 1968).

McKnight, Thomas. Australia's Corner of the World (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1970).

McNee, Robert B. “Towards a More Humanistic Economic Geography: The
Geography of Enterprise," Tijdschrift voor Economische en
Sociale Geographie, Vol. 51 (1960), pp. 201-205.

 

Morgan, W. T. W. "A Functional Approach to the Study of Office Distri-
bution," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geographie,
Vol. 52 (1961), pp. 207-210.

Philbrick, Allen K. "Principles of Areal Functional Organization in
Regional Human Geography," Economic Geography, Vol. 33 (1957),
pp. 299-336.

Rand McNally and Company. Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide
(Chicago: Rand MCNaTl , 1972), pp. 417.

Robinson, K. W. Australia, New Zealand and the Southwest Pacific
(London: University of London Press, l960).

"Sixty Years of Federation in Australia," Geographical
Review, Vol. 51 (1961), pp. 1-20.

Rolfe, Hylda. The Controllers: Interlockin Directorates in Large
Australian Companies (Melhburne: . W. Cheshire, 1967).

Sampson, Anthony. Anatomy of Britain (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1962 .

 

Smith, R. H. T. "Method and Purpose in Functional Town Classification,
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 55 (1965),

_’_‘3'pp. 5 9-548.
Spate, 0. H. K. Australia (New York: Praeger, 1968).

Starkey, Otis P., and Robinson, J. Lewis. The Anglo-American Realm
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969).

The Australian. "A Directory to the Top 1,000 Companies, Australia
and N. Z. 1964," (October, 1964).

 

225

Thoman, Richard S., et al. The Geography of Economic Activity_(2nd
ed.; New YorE: McGraw-Hill, 1968).

Ullman, Edward L. "Regional Development and the Geography of Concent-
ration," Papers and Proceedings, Regional Science Association,
Vol. 4 (1958), pp. 179-198.

 

Universal Business Directories. (Sydney: Universal Business Direct-
ories, various years 1963-1965). '

 

Wheelwright, E. L., and Miskelly, Judith. Anatomy of Australian Manu-
facturing Industry (Sydney: Law Bohk Company, 1967).