way stations in Tasmania; in 1905-6, by 33,575 tons; in 1906-7, by 20,097 tons; and in 1908-9, by 34,968 tons. From 1902 to 1911, the goods traffic increased by 29.85 per cent, and the passenger traffic, which is the chief traffic, as Senator Sayers will admit, increased from 1904-5 to 1910-11 by 74.32 per cent. This year, the total number of passengers carried to and from Launceston was 210,463, and in 1910-11, the number was 337,429. In view of these facts the growing importance of our trade, the rapidly increasing rates and fares to which we are subjected, and the isolation of Tasmania-I contend that I have made out a case for the establishment of a Commonwealth-owned line of steamers. I am going to ask the Senate, in debating this motion, to endeavor to realize that if we are to make a start in connection with controlling steamship traffic, we should, in the first instance, take into consideration the State most needing such communication. That State is, undoubtedly, Tasmania. Senator GUTHRIE. Why, then, does not Tasmania start a line of steamers? Senator READY. I think that there is a very good and vital reason why Tasmania does not take that course, namely, that it is a matter that concerns Victoria and New South Wales, and also the rest of the Commonwealth. Senator GUTHRIE. The honorable senator said that Tasmania needed the service most. Senator READY. Undoubtedly, because by reason of our isolation we feel the defects of the present situation most; but the mainland States also require this accommodation to a great extent. At the present time a select committee is sitting in Tasmania to inquire into the steamship traffic. But that committee, which has been appointed by the State Parliament, is dealing particularly with the Hobart-Sydney and Hobart-Brisbane service. I believe that the idea I have it on fairly good authority-is to endeavor to induce the State government to establish vessels to trade not only from Hobart to Sydney, but to continue right up to Brisbane and give us a direct service with Queensland ports. If the State government does that, well and good. I believe that the avenues of trade are such that the service will be very profitable. But that is in a different catagory altogether from the service which I am now advocating, which is a matter concerning the means of communication of an integral part of the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth is going to establish steamers, undoubtedly Tasmania can put in the best claim for consideration. It is for that reason that I have taken this course. I trust that the subject will be thoroughly ventilated. I shall be glad to hear the opinions of honorable senators opposite. It is rather a big subject. The subsidies that the Commonwealth is already paying to private companies would be more than sufficient to pay interest on a line of steamers that would furnish us with a reproductive service. Senator RAE. What is the subsidy that we pay? Senator READY. We are paying £13,000. In other words, we pay interest on £300,000, and that amouut would give us two vessels of 4,000 tons, fit for trading between Launceston and Melbourne. Senator WALKER. Does the honorable senator consider that, if the opposition of the private companies continued, we should be able to get all the traffic on which he counts? Senator READY. I am of opinion that no private company could compete successfully with vessels owned and run by the Commonwealth. Senator Lieut. Col. Sir ALBERT GOULD. The private companies would be able to run their vessels more cheaply, in all probability. Senator READY. I believe that the venture would be profitable from the outset, and that it would largely increase the traffic between the mainland and Tasmania. We should largely develop the cargo traffic, for the simple reason that one boat traveling between Launceston and Melbourne and back on the same day is not able to load cargo to advantage. With two boats running in the summer there would be more time for loading cargo, and consequently more produce would be shipped to the mainland. On account of the very short time that the Loongana remains in port, she is handicapped in this respect. But, under the system that I advocate, producers would be able to ship more regularly and we should establish a trade that would be worth many thousands of pounds a year to Tasmania. I do not wish to labor the question. I have dealt with it as it presents itself to my mind, and I trust that honorable senators on both sides will consider it fairly and see the advantage of taking this further step in the direction of practical socialism. If the States composing the Commonwealth of Australia can spend £150,000,000 on railways, surely we can logically spend £250,000, or a little more, on steamships. There is no reason why we should not. I am one of those who believe, in common with other public men, that in a few years' time we shall have to have our own over-sea vessels, as well as our own interstate boats, manned by our own seamen, worked under Australian conditions, and flying the Australian flag. That would be a magnificent advertisement for us on the seas of the world, and we should not only gain the benefits of cheaper freights and fares, but should be able to bring out a regular stream of desirable immigrants on more favorable terms than has been possible before. The Hon. George Graham, the Victorian minister of agriculture, has repeatedly declared in public that he believes that the only solution of many of our transport troubles will be the establishment of a Commonwealth line of steamers. A commission has already inquired into the matter, and I am sure that honorable senators, who have read its report, have done so with a good deal of interest. It points out that, for about £4,000,000, we can have eight up-todate vessels, well equipped, with all the latest conveniences for traveling. At the present time, we are paying a considerable subsidy to the Orient Steamship Co. I forget the amount, for the moment. Senator KEATING. About £125,000 a year? Senator READY. That would pay interest on a good service owned by the Commonwealth. Senator WALKER. Has any honorable Senator any idea of what the large vessels have to pay on going through the Suez Canal? Senator READY. I am aware that they have to pay heavy dues, but, at the same time, the Orient Steamship Co. is paying something like 16 per cent in dividends, so that it is doing very well, notwithstanding the canal dues. The establishment of a service of our own would bring to an end many of the grave problems which confront our exporters to-day in connection with shipping space. In the butter trade we have learned how certain merchants have commandeered the available space by making arrangements with the shipping companies, and have consequently been able to tax the producers to an inordinate extent. We have had the spectacle of many of our industries being absolutely controlled by a few merchants in conjunction with the shipping companies. In consequence many of the producers have been looking confidently to the Commonwealth for a solution of the difficulties under which they labor in regard to oversea exportation. I trust that I shall have the support of honorable Senators on both sides of the Senate in connection with the advocacy of this progressive plank that was recently added to the Labor platform. Even those who do not agree with our platform generally should recognize that as Australia is an island continent steamship communication is of vital importance to us. It is as important as internal communication by means of railways. The only way in which we can grapple with the great problem of transport is to establish such a line of boats as will enable us to relieve our people from the many grave disadvantages under which they are now suffering. Debate (on motion by Senator Findley) adjourned. COMMONWEALTH-OWNED OVER-SEAS AND INTERSTATE STEAMERS. Debate resumed from 7th November (vide page 5157), on motion by Senator Ready That, in the opinion of this Senate, it is desirable that the Government should, as early as possible, establish a fleet of Commonwealth-owned overseas and interstate steamers, commencing with the linking-up of Tasmania, as an integral part of the Commonwealth, with the mainland, by means of a line of steamships. Senator O'KEEFE (Tasmania). It will be readily admitted by those who listened to his speech that Senator Ready made out an excellent case for the establishment of a Commonwealth-owned line of steamers between the mainland and Tasmania. He gave facts and figures to show that such a Commonwealth enterprise would be highly remunerative to the taxpayers of Australia, while it would, at the same time, give the residents of Tasmania greater facilities for communication with the mainland than they have at present. Another strong argument in favor of carrying this motion has been put forward by a committee which was appointed by the Tasmanian Parliament to deal with the matter. The following is an extract from a Melbourne newspaper: The committee was appointed as the result of long-standing complaints and dissatisfaction with the present shipping services. The committee took evidence in all parts of the State, and, at the request of the premier (Mr. Soloman), information was obtained regarding the policy adopted by the Japanese Government for the development of its mercantile marine. The committee states that the matter of maritime transport with the other States is a many-sided one, and that the greatest difficulty was experienced in making recommendations. The committee believes that such a magnificent harbor as Hobart should possess docking facilities. One of the recommendations which the committee made was That, in the interests of the tourist traffic and the full development of Tasmania's trade resources, the Government should open up negotiations with the Commonwealth ministry with a view of ascertaining the largest amount of subsidy that will be paid to the State of Tasmania in the event of the Tasmanian government deciding to build two vessels of modern type to trade between northern Tasmania and Victoria, and that action be taken according to the nature of the replies received to the above questions. I may state that the committee was not composed of a majority of members of the Labor Party, who are supposed to be in favor of the nationalization of steamer services between one part of the Commonwealth and another. The majority of the committee was composed of followers of the present government of Tasmania, which is generally opposed to nationalization, and the fact that the committee made such a strong recommendation regarding the desirableness of the State government seriously considering the question of running a State service between Tasmania and the mainland shows that there must be very urgent necessity for some alteration in the existing service. The committee proposed that the Commonwealth Government should be approached with the view of finding out what subsidy it would give the State of Tasmania in the event of the State instituting a service. The committee have not quite the same idea as is conveyed by Senator Ready in this motion, but it emphasizes the urgent necessity that exists for improving the service between Tasmania and the mainland in the interests, not only of the people of Tasmania, but of those on the mainland. Speaking from a long experience of the difficulties and disabilities which Tasmania labors under, through its present inadequate service, I believe that there is a better chance of a Commonwealth-owned service being more remunerative than a State-owned service, and I favor the proposal of Senator Ready rather than the recommendation of the committee appointed by the Tasmanian Parliament. There is ample precedent for the Commonwealth entering into this undertaking. It has already undertaken an enormous liability in connection with the railway between Western Australia and the eastern part of the Commonwealth, and the reason why the Commonwealth entered into that liability was on account of the comparatively isolated State of Western Australia. Although that railway will involve the taxpayers in a loss for some years after it has been running, the majority of members in both houses willingly voted the money, because they considered that the circumstances justified them in doing so. Senator GUTHRIE. Not from the commercial, but from the defense aspect. Senator O'KEEFE. From a number of aspects. One of the strongest reasons which impelled me to change the views I held for a number of years, and to eventually vote in favor of the construction of that railway was that, from a defense aspect, the early construction of the line was necessary. A splendid case has been made out for the establishment of a Commonwealth-owned line of steamers, and when the Commonwealth Government is approached by the Tasmanian Government, as it will be very shortly, with a view to ascertaining what subsidy the Commonwealth will grant to a State-owned service, I ask the Government to seriously consider whether it would not be better for the Commonwealth itself to establish a line of steamers between Tasmania and the mainland. Question put. The Senate divided. Ayes, 12; noes, 3; majority, 9. Ayes: Buzacott, R.; de Largie, H.; Findley, E.; Givens, T.; McDougall, A.; McGregor, G.; Needham, E.; O'Keefe, D. J.; Pearce, G. F.; Stewart, J. C.; Turley, H. Teller, Blakey, A. E. H. Noes: Fraser, S.; St. Ledger, A. J. Teller, McColl, J. H. Revenue and expenditure for State steamships, in western Australia, for the years 1911–12, 1912-13, and estimates for 1913–14. Source: Second session of the Eighth Parliament, October 17, 1912, v. 11, B 1, p. 9, 113. Third session of the Eighth Parliament, October 16, 1913, v. 11, B 1, p. 9, 113. Estimates of expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1913. Manager, at £480 (6 months), at £600 (6 Submanager and ac- Clerks, 1 at £264, 1 at Temporary clerical as- 10 Eucla, 11 12 salaries and wages, including over- Una, salaries and wages, Subdivision No. 2-Contin- |