["House of Representatives", Daily News (Perth, WA), Friday 16 August 1912, page 8]
MELBOURNE, This Day.
...
The debate on the second reading of the Navigation Bill was resumed by Mr. Howe (N.S.W.), who expressed his approval of many of the provisions of the Bill. Mr. Fowler (W.A.) said that from what he had experienced 20 years ago across the Bight, he had since been very critical of nautical matters. The old tub he was on was fitted 100 people, and she had over 600 men on board, and they were lodged in temporary boarded bunks between decks. Since then remarkable strides had been made with the Australian shipping development. What they had seen was only a faint indication of the future trade, and they were justified in bringing in such measures as the Navigation Bill to deal with it. He welcomed the Bill as tending to the betterment of men, and the giving of better services to the public. On the whole our shipping had been carried on with remarkably few calamities, and they must regard Australian shipping as of a character to assure them that the best was being done for the safety
of the ships and the passengers. He thought that the British Board of Trade had fallen behind trade itself, and was more representative of shipping interests than of public interests. The Australian boards were also very much on the terms of the Board of Trade, and the work done by their officials was of a very perfunctory kind. Reports in connection with the loss of the Waratah and other great disasters were very unsatisfactory. He suggested that some better evidence, which was not produced, was available. In the modern construction or vessels stability seemed to be some times sacrificed to cargo and passenger interests. The loss of the Koombana and Yongla was probably due to a similar cause. When he travelled on the Yongala he was told she was a tender ship, and the same thing had been said of the Koombana. The towering upper structure appeared to be out of proportion to the lower part, and he was told that the captain of the vessel had informed a friend that she was a tender ship, though otherwise a splendid vessel. The Yongala was built for speed, and after his first experience of her, and what he heard when on board, he thought he would not travel in her subsequently. The Koombana, although not built for speed, was built so that she could be navigated in comparatively shallow waters. While she was known in Western Australia as a top-heavy ship, the officers apparently would not tell all they knew at the inquiry. He believed that the loss of the Waratah, Koombana, and Yongala was due to wind pressure against their superstructures. He complained that the Bill did not give sufficient attention to the question of stability of ships or the interests of passengers. They should try and lay down some definite lines as to what should constitute the safety and stability of ships. He urged the Government to make special inquiry into the subject.
