19

A.—sa

ItEPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE

know the difficulty as well as I do of getting any Bill through the House of Commons. We are trying to improve the machinery. There is the enormous interest involved. It is a very difficult thing to get a Bill through the House of Commons, and 1 am sure you cannot get the House of Commons to pass another Shipping Bill for another twenty years, whereas this suggestion can be carried out by an act of administration, and it will answer the same purpose. Naturally we would not suggest oth.-r vessels, vessels that go to the Baltic or the E.isi Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : May 1 say a word in reply to Mr. Hughes in regard to our views on this matter. We think that the proposal now before the Board would be quite sufficient. The CHAIRMAN : You mean Sir Joseph Ward's? Mil HAVELOCK WILSON : Yes. We think it quite sufficient for this reason; it covers a class of ships that 20 on long voyages, that are out of touch with the Board of Trade: but if they go into Australian waters there is a chance they would be surveyed, whereas our ships trading to the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic come and go from the United Kingdom every six or seven weeks. Well, if any crew have any complaints as to the seaworthiness of the vessel they are not very long before they let us know about it, as I think the Board of Trade will agree, for I very often have reasons to address letters to the Board with regard to the complaints of crews. I do not say they are always correct, but it shows there is a tendency on the part of the men, if they have any grievances as to unseaworthiness of the ships or boilers, they have a means of communicating with the Union, and the Union does not fail to bring the matter under the notice of the Board, and the inspectors go aboard and see to it. I think this proposal would be ample to meet our view on the matter, as it would touch a class of vessels that are out of touch with the Board of Trade for one or two years at a time. Mr. BELCHER : It occurs to me, the crux of this question lies in this one fact : Are the Australian and New Zealand Governments to be permitted to conduct their own coasting inter-Colonial trade in their own way or not? From the remarks I have heard, I understand there is to be no attempt to try to deter the Australian Colonies enacting whatever shipping legislation they think proper. If the British shipowner cannot see his way clear to ha»e certificates granted to his ships when they are going to Australia to trade there, then he will have to take the consequences of not doing so. I certainly agree with Mr. Hughes; I think, as a practical seaman, that it is highly desirable no ship should sail without a certificate granted by the Government. That is my own opinion. But this is where I disagree with Mr. Hughes : I do not think it is our place from Australia to suggest to the British people what they should do in that respect. They will find out probably in the course of time that they will have to do it. And in legard to the matter of the survey every six months, which has been mentioned by Sir William Lyne, which is to be incorporated in the Commonwealth Bill, ships in New Zealand are surveyed every twelve months, and we know they are surveyed extremely well; we have no reason to find fault with that at all, and it occurs to me that that is where with regard to the matter of surveying difficulty will creep in so far as the legislation of the different places is concerned. Apparently, from what Sir William Lyne has said, there will be no disposition on the part of the Commonwealth Government to depart from the provisions they have already incorporated into the Bill they hope to pass into law; at all events as one of the delegates from New Zealand, 1 may say that so far as the coastal trade, not only in New Zealand, but of Australia, is concerned, we must protect it for our own interest. Our shipping interests are certainly not so large as yours here, but to us they are every bit of as much importance as your trade, and we must protect it. Mr. DUNLOP: Under this provision a vessel not going to the coastal trade would require this survey ? The CHAIRMAN : Yes. Mr. DUNLOP : It appears to me if that is the suggestion for the class of tonnage I represent, it would practically mean that we would have to secure a certificate before we left. ff we sent a vessel to India, for

instance, we have no idea where she is going afterwards, and with that prospect in view I would have to secure that certificate before I left this country, or undertake the liability of putting myself into the hands of our friends in Australia to be surveyed there. Now, we had much rather trust ourselves to the Board of Trade. What I bring home to you is this : that this proposition which you are making means a great addition to the already overburdened shipowners. It means a great expense. I should like to hear from our Australian friends why they require it; why they want further surveys. From my experience, a ship has to undergo a very severe survey from Lloyd's. We know it would be useless to attempt to sail our ship without Lloyd's certificate, because they would practically be uninsurable; the underwriter, when you put a risk before him, looks to see when the ship has last been surveyed, and on that certificate he is prepared to underwrite. I maintain that the certificates under which we are liable now are just as good as a Government certificate could be. I maintain if this proposition is carried out you will require an army of surveyors for this work, because every tramp steamer that is going through the Suez Canal will require to get this certificate. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Have you considered the second part : " That standards as to hull, machinery, "boilers, and life-saving appliances, established by the "Board of Trade and testified by current certificates, "should be accepted for British ships throughout the " Empire " ? Mr. DUN LOP: Yes. We have a great many ships that we do not have a Board of Trade certificate for. I would have to run the risk of getting such surveyed in Australia, or ask the Board of Trade to give me a certificate. Hitherto we have found that our legislation has so far worked admirably. The Imperial Parliament have sustained the position, and do not require every steamer to have a certificate. You talk of second-class steamers — there is practically no such thing. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It means a non-passeneer steamer. Mr. DUNLOP : On this question of certificate I differ from Mr. Norman Hill. I should like that we should agree. Mr. MILLS : One great objection to the classification certificate is that it is issued for four years. Mr DUNLOP : No; after a certain period it is sur veyed every year. The CHAIRMAN : That is a matter we can arrange in the classification. I do not think we need worrv about that; I think we shall be able to arrange it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I "prefer to let the motion stand with the word "vessels" instead of "steamships." The CHAIRMAN : May I take it this resolution is move by Sir Joseph Ward and seconded bv Mr. Norman Hill ! Mil. NORMAN HILL: Have we " facilities " ? .^ THE u CI , J AIRM A J N: , r think il means facilities-that they should provide for the issue of certificates; it is not compulsory. ab"u°t N it W ' M HUGHES : The,e is nothi "g compulsory Sir WILLIAM LYNE : What different position does that place us in to the position we are in now' I cannot see. I think it is simply emphasizing the same thing. _ou can take it Australia is not going to give up her right if there is a reason for surveying. Mr. COX : We do not ask it. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : At the present time she has a right to survey. She will have a right under this. I cannot quite see what different position a shipowner is in if this is passed than he was in before. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : The difference of having the right to arrest a man if he does wrong or saying he shall be arrested in any case every six The CHAIRMAN : One of the things shipowners want to avoid is this : they do not want to make it a