["State Steamers", The West Australian, Wednesday 23 April 1913, page 7]
STATE STEAMERS.
CRITICISM OF THE SERVICE.
MR. DREW IN REPLY.
Referring yesterday to "Observer's" article on the State Steamship Service, the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Drew) stated to a representative of the "West Australian":--
"I read the article with a great deal of interest, mingled with some amusement and a little disgust. It is quite true I refused to furnish the writer with information bearing upon the financial position and business operations of the State Steamship Service. I have a deep respect for the Press, but I have yet to learn that any private firm, or even a public company, would consent to the exposure of the inner workings of its business through the columns of a newspaper. The State Steamship Service is a trading concern in vigorous competition with other enterprises of a similar class; and, to my mind, it would be suicidal to adopt any course which would enable our opponents to keep themselves posted in our every movement. At any rate, I do not propose to do so while I am in charge of the department. Of course, I could have supplied information to 'Observer' which would not come under this category, but it would practically have meant sub-editing his 'copy.' Moreover, from my point of view, it appeared much nicer to allow 'Observer' to have his full say in his own way; so that, after some of his specific statements had been subjected to the searchlight. the public would be able to form an estimate of the value of his criticisms as a whole.
"'Observer' takes, as the basis of the profit and loss account of the State steamship service, the amount drawn out of the Treasury and the amount paid back. He thus reveals his gross ignorance of the elementary principles of accountancy. You might just as well judge a business firm's financial position by the difference between its deposits and withdrawals from a bank in a given space of time. Any person possessing the slightest acquaintance with bookkeeping will know that 'Observer's' method of arriving at a balance is unworthy of a schoolboy. In connection with the State steamship service – as in connection with a public company – the assets have to be taken into consideration; and these, so far as we are concerned, include large quantities of stores, coal, moneys due by other departments for services rendered, and other items which materially alter the Treasury aspect of the case.
"He says there are accounts which have been incurred since August which have not been paid. This is distinctly untrue, unless by the words 'since August' he means of recent date. 'Since August' might mean last week, or even yesterday. As a matter of fact, with one exception, no account has been unduly held over. The exception I refer to is an account for £100, the vouchers for which had been mislaid. With regard to the account running into four figures which he says was delayed, the debt was for coal. The liability was incurred in February, and it was met in March, in the usual course of business.
"'It is stated,' he says, 'that vessels be longing to the State service have been responsible for extra expenditure by the harbour and light authorities to the tune of close on £2,000. That is false. No such expenditure has taken place, nor will it take place, for the simple reason that the necessity for it does not exist. Then he rambles on, building untruth on untruth: 'An effort was made to avoid this considerable sum being shown as a debit against the service; but the Acting Premier directed the State steamships to stand the charge.' Nine tenths of this is pure invention. The facts are these: the Western Australia broke seven fender piles at the Carnarvon jetty, and the Works Department put in a claim for the cost of the piles, as to the value of which there was some difference of opinion between the Steamship and the Works Departments. The Acting Premier gave no such direction as that indicated.
"We have a further instance of 'Observer's' knowledge of accountancy when he demands that not only interest and depreciation should be charged against the steamship service, but also a contribution to a sinking fund. He wants us to write off a stiff amount every year for depreciation and to contribute to a sinking fund long after the ships have been paid for. To prove his palpable bias, one has only to point to his astounding suggestion that a proportion of the cost of the Hopetoun jetty should be debited against the steamship service.
It is difficult to conceive that a writer who runs amok in this fashion can do much more than amuse intelligent readers. 'Observer' is evidently not well up in shipping movements, for he states that the Una was purchased for £2,000, and that she has never been used: 'Never been used!' and yet this vessel was running the mail service on the South coast for some months until the Eucla arrived. The Una did twelve trips in that service, and after that four more to Hopetoun. Then she went to the North-West for the Works Department. The crew was then disbanded and a watchman only employed since, pending the decision of the Government regarding requests for her to run to certain ports. Arrangements have now been made for the charter of this vessel for a short period, after which a decision will be come to in reference to the requests already indicated.
"We are accused of carrying timber to New Zealand at 20 per cent. lower rates than the other compames were prepared to quote. I do not know what the companies were prepared to quote; but I do know that this timber was taken at the ruling rate at the time, neither more nor less. 'Observer' says, 'When the vessel was at Wellington there was no money to pay the officers and men. Mr. Johnson twice cabled to the Government, and the New Zealand Government had eventually to make an advance.' This distinctly misleading. The officers and men, under their agreement, were not entitled to be paid in New Zealand. However, they asked for some money. The Minister cabled across and the money was cabled in due course. In the meantime, the master, instead of adhering to the crew's agreement until he had instructions from the manager to the contrary, asked the New Zealand Government for a loan. It is untrue that Mr. Johnson had anything to do with the matter except to confirm the master's cable.
"Another crime we have committed is that we sent the Kwinana to the East with a cargo of superphosphates for the use of producers there to the detriment of local farmers. 'Observer,' if sincere, must be very shallow-minded. One would think we were denuding Western Australia of one of her natural fertilisers; whereas everyone should know that phosphatic rock is imported, and the greater the market for the manufactured article – whether within the State or without – the more employment of local labour and the more prosperity. Criticism of this character carries its own condemnation, and argues either ignorance or an overwhelming faith in the gullibility of the public. He says that the superphosphates were carried at a loss. This is not true. The trip shows an excellent profit. The talk about claims and 'protracted litigation' is merely wild assertion. Since the service started there have been only three disputed claims; and two of these have been with one firm. Litigation may result in one instance, but there are no intricate points involved. Three disputed items in nine months is not a fearsome record, surely.
"'Stock-owners and shippers are calling for space on the steamships,' he states, and they want the Kwinana' The reply to this is that as far back as December last the whole of the space was booked for both steamers; and they are being run in accord ance with the arrangements made. It is too late now for those who have not booked space to cry out for the Kwinana. 'Useless and expensive trips!' 'Observer' is wrong in stating that the Adelaide Steamship Company's boats used to trade as far as Broome only during the winter. He should also be aware – if he has any knowledge of shipping – that for many years past it has been customary for the North-West mail steamer to make two trips in every 60 days. But the lack of knowledge of his subject displayed by your contributor is equalled only by his gargantuan self-assurance. 'Observer' figures out a 'loss of over £20,000.' I am not going to flaunt the financial position of the State steamship service in the columns of the Press, though it is your contributor's evident intention to tempt me to do so. I am satisfied, however, from the statements regularly submitted to me by the manager that when our balance-sheet is placed before Parliament the action of the Government in establishing the steamship service will be fully justified. In the meantime I would ask the unprejudiced section of the community – not those who, from interested motives have been defaming the service – to judge 'Observer's' £20,000 deficit in the light of the other numerous gross misrepresentations and misstatements to which he has given currency without qualm of conscience and without the slightest regard for the interests of the State."
