["State Steamers", The West Australian, Friday 25 April 1913, page 7]

STATE STEAMERS.

CRITICISM OF THE SERVIGE.

REPLY TO THE MINISTER.

(By "Observer.")

On his own showing my article published in Tuesday's issue greatly interested Mr. Drew, the Colonial Secretary, who is the Ministerial head of the State Steamship Service. It also disgusted him. His assertion that it amused him is not evidenced in the subject matter of his reply. It certainly angered him. More than that, it provoked him to the extent that he became abusive and offensive, but, at the same time, the perturbing of his temper did not rob him of the cautiousness which prompts evasion. There is always the risk on the part of one holding such a responsible position that when he becomes angry, when he is put into a corner, he forgets for the moment the dignity of his position, and, as a consequence, delivers himself into the hands of his antagonists. Not that I want to be considered an antagonist to Mr. Drew. I have a purpose to attain, and that purpose is the direction of the public to the seriousness of a careful consideration of the State Steamship Service. I want to show that the ambitions of the Labour Government have not been realised, and that in the attempt to arrive at their goal of realisation they have damaged the State exchequer to a degree that not even experimental efforts will give justification. In the carrying out of such a purpose I am guided by the tenets of clean journalism learned during years of experience that extend over a period double that which the Colonial Secretary can boast of as his permission in the limelight of politics. My greater experience, therefore, and that which has been inculcated in the best schools, prompts me to say at once, with all respect and deference to one holding such an honorable and exalted position as that which our electors at present permit Mr. Drew to occupy, that I absolutely refuse to descend, in a discussion of a public matter, to the level which demands that such expressions as "unworthy of a schoolboy"; "gross ignorance"; "distinctly untrue"; "that is false"; "he rambles on, building untruth on untruth"; "palpable bias"; "a writer who runs amok" "distinctly misleading"; "shallow minded"; "wild assertion"; "gargantuan self-assurance"; "numerous gross misrepresentations and mis-statements"; "without qualm of conscience"; and "without the slightest regard for the interests of the State," should be resorted to, in desperation. I do not want Mr. Drew. to be amused. I want him to, at least, be very interested, and to refrain from becoming angry, offensive, or evasive. Above all, I want him to face the music in a manly fashion. I have at last enticed him within the roped arena. Practically every man at the ringside would resent his hitting below the belt, and, as a consequence, he must fight fairly.

It is difficult to conclude whether, in his effort to combat my statements, Mr. Drew has been misisinformed by his officers, whether he is ignorant of the true position of affairs, or whether, being cognisant of the position as it obtains, he has feebly attempted a game of bluff. He admits that he was afraid to discuss the subject with me. He alleges that he did not want to give to private shipping companies information which would show the inner workings of the State steamship business. I did not want it for the information of the other companies. The public, who are the shareholders in the State concern, want the information. The vigorous competition to which he refers consists, so far as I can learn, to the seeking of information with regard to the rates charged by the private companies and the cutting of those rates with, in nine cases out of ten, a loss to the State Steamship business.

The Treasury aspect of the case is the only aspect that the public have. It is the only aspect that the public want. What the public want is that in the Treasury aspect the true position shall be shown. This, it will be generally conceded, is not given with regard to the State Steamship Service. What purpose can the Minister have in quibbling over stores? There is not any fluctuation from month to month in an item of this nature, and in any case it is but a question of a few hundred pounds. As for coal and other supplies, I am going to show him that his position in these particulars is anything but a satisfactory one. Mr. Drew knows that moneys due by other departments which might materially alter the Treasury aspect of affairs are not worthy of consideration in his defence, for the reason that the amount outstanding to credit in this particular are comparatively infinitesimal.

It is a most serious thing for a Minister of the Crown to say that a statement made by a responsible writer in the leading journal of the State is distinctly untrue. He played on words when dealing with my assertion that there are accounts which have been incurred since August lest that have not been paid. He can beat the air to his heart's content. But I challenge him to call upon me to prove what I have asserted. Yesterday I was allowed to see the books of a firm that commenced to do business with the State Steamship Service early in August last. Although accounts have been rendered monthly there has not been made one payment. There are other services for which payments have not been made. When the manager of one company which does a great deal of business with the Government made personal application for a cheque at the office of the State Steamship Service he was shown a sheaf of cheques already filled in which were awaiting signature. His cheque was among the number, but although that incident occurred a month ago the cheque has not yet been paid. If the one cheque has not been paid, how many more, it may be asked, are still outstanding? At once let me ask Mr. Drew to give an assurance that there is not being made a desperate efort to stave off the payment of liabilities incurred during months past so that at the end of the financial year which is only nine weeks off there will not be revealed to the public the fact that the State Steamship Service has cost the Government a great deal more than the £20,000 that I contended the first nine months' transactions took from the taxpayers. When I wrote on Tuesday I referred to an amount running into four figures that had not been charged to expenditure in March when it should have been. Mr. Drew says that the liability was for coal – though, by the way, I did not say so – and he asserts that the liability was incurred in February and was met in March. He surely has been misinformed. The liability incurred in February was not met in March, but was met early this month. My first statement that the sum running into four figures was carried over the period which demanded that it should be shown in general expenditure before the end of March is therefore perfectly true, and is not false. If Mr. Drew would like further particulars I will he pleased to furnish them. This and the matter referred to immediately preceding will give the public an idea as to who is piling untruth upon untruth. These are two matters that Mr. Drew must answer, and when he finds what I assert is true his position demands that he will make an un qualified withdrawal of his charges of falsehood against me.

When I stated that there had been incurred an indebtedness to other departments to the extent of close upon £2,000, because of damage done to jetties and other conveniences in the Nor'-West, I had a great deal more in my mind than the breaking of seven fender piles at Carnarvon. There were beacons and lights at Port Hedland, and there is also a jetty at Derby, and of the existence of these Mr. Drew and his officers are surely aware. Will the Colonial Secretary say anything about the damage done at both these ports, and also give the public some information as to the cost of the construction of the beacons and lights and other conveniences which the State steamers destroyed. When I referred to the Acting-Premier it did not occur to me to be necessary to tell Mr. Drew that his colleague, Mr Bath, was for some time in the Eastern States, and that in his absence Mr. Collier was in temporary charge of the affairs of the State. If he cares to call for the official files he will see that Mr. Collier directed that the State Steamship Service should meet the cost of the damage done to jetties, beacons, lights, etc., at Nor'-West ports, and if he asks for estimates he will learn that the damage done is very little less than £2,000. And after he has gone into this matter he will find that I did not "build untruth upon untruth," but he will discover that I have a knowledge of a great deal more than he imagined, and I may tell him at once that I intend to make full use of that knowledge. Just for the purpose of giving him some inkling, I may say that I know just what it cost to put in the beacons and lights at Port Hedland that one of the State steamers wiped out in one fell swoop.

There are feelings of compassion engendered when one knows that he is smiting hard. That is why I did not refer to the s.s. Una as a roosting place for sea fowl. In the information given me I may have been misled with regard to the use to which the Government put that notorious little vessel from the time of her purchase by them at a price which was nearly double that at which any other intending shipping trader could have got her. But even if this did give Mr. Drew an opportunity to exult there is still the fact that she was used in her Nor'-West trip to convey three Public Works Department officers on a visit of inspection, and that her charter was at the rate of £400 per month. Even if the charge had been credited to the State Steamship Service, which has yet to be shown, there is the fact that to the taxpayer the use of the small vessel has been very expensive. After six months of use by the sea fowl the s.s. Una was chartered on Monday last to make a trip to Bunbury, and we have the assurance of the Minister that after that "a decision will be come to in reference to the requests already indicated"--whatever that may mean.

Who cares whether it was the Minister or the master of the vessel that was compelled to borrow money from the New Zealand Government to meet the wages demands of the officers and men? The feet remains that such a transaction was to the great discredit of our State. The subterfuge which the Colonial Secretary has made an effort to set up makes his positon in the matter pitiable. Let me tell him this in brief reply to his reference to this notorious trip made by a State-owned steamer to New Zealand with timber and a State Minister with his family: The rates at which the timber was carried were not only 20 per cent. lower than those offered by other companies as suggested in my article, but they were 25 per cent. lower. The people who chartered the vessel were the Millars' Timber Combine. Without entering into argument, and, in fact, in order to avoid it, I now tell Mr. Drew that at the time that the State-owned steamer was loading timber for the Combine for transhipment to three New Zealand ports another vessel was loading for the same people timber for the same ports at rates which were 25 per cent. higher than the State Service was securing. Will Mr. Drew deny that in consequence of there being no money to meet the demands of the men at the New Zealand port wharfage dues had to be paid for three days after the steamer could have been cleared. His plea that the men were not entitled to payment while yet they compelled payment is an admission of an astounding weakness in management and control.

It was pointed out by me that fertilisers were being taken away at reduced rases, while at the same time our farmers were calling for their use on our wheat areas. Mr. Drew says that the trip shows an excellent profit. How can he know that before the vessel has returned? His shipping advisers cannot yet have got their full returns. But even if she has shown a shipping profit, what can he and his Government say concerning the robbing from the producers of the fertilisers which ought to have been supplied to them instead of being carted thousands of miles to their competitors in other parts of Australia.

It is comforting to know from Mr. Drew that there is not to be any protracted litigation. That would cost the country a great deal of money. There is regret to be felt, however, in the fact that some of the meat people who were the bugbears that the Government set out to wipe off the face of the earth by the establishment of the State Steamship Service have been able solely by the use of the State steamers to get their cattle and sheep to our markets both from the Eastern States and the Nor'-West at half cost or even less than that which would have been permitted them had the State steamers not been run. And there is reason for further regret that notwithstanding all this the working man who swears by his Labour Government which he put into power is paying more for his meat to-day than he ever had to before. When I said that Mr. Drew was evasive I had in mind this business of the mismanagement in the conveyance of the sheep and cattle from the Nor'-West, and also from the Eastern States. He did not make the slightest reference to those subjects. Nor did he have anything to say in reply to my statements concerning the preference being shown to the State Steamship Service by other Departments. These constituted the gravamen of the charges against the Service. By resort to abuse he has dodged the main points in as clumsy a fashion as he and his officers avoided a discussion of the subject with me. I have, however, surely given him suficient to answer that will occupy him for some time. After he has done that I propose giving him a second instalment, for I may assure him and the public that the half has not yet been told.