29

A.—sa

REPOHT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE.

next 20 or 30 years where the men will have to put up with the inconveniences. That will be inequitable with regard to the men in the newer vessels. I shall certainly support the idea that it should be made retrospective where it is possible to make the alteration. I think the cases that have been mentioned, where it cannot be altered, will simply have to be allowed. Rut the accommodation in which the men at present sleep is not adequate, as you have heard. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : Rut you say where- it can be done it should be; but many things cannot he done because the cost is prohibitive. Mn BELCHER: Hut looked at from the men's point eif view, are the crews to suffer, or is the shipowner to be- put to an expense. In other words, is the- matter of money going to be put up against flesh and blood. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: Mr. Re-lchei refers to the workers under this industry, which is one of the- largest and most important. The employers are making chums to be regarded differently from the employers in any other business. A factory owner in Lancashire- has to comply with an Act, not in respect of a new mill, but in respect of his old mill. He- may complain, but he has to comply. Why should a shipowner be treated different ly fiom anybody els-. A shipowner says his is the most important industry in the Empire. Mil. COX : Doe-, that ever go to the e-xtcnt of making him pull down his factory ? Hon. W. M. HUGHES: He only wants to make a little more provision for the crew and a little less for the cargo. Sir WILLIAM LYNE: The point you raise has been clone, and they refuse a licence in some cases whe re they did not do it, and therefore I agree with Mr. Iluglies: I do not see why there should be an exemption made for shipowners. I want to point this out : that this is one of the most important matters we are going to deal with. There is one other as important, and we want to do something that will make the conditions of seafaring men an inducement for British men to go into the ships. If this matter is not dealt with in the- way we have suggested in the Act we are proposing, you won't do very much good, because I have seen and know conditions under which seamen are subjected at the present time which are simply disgraceful. That is one reason why a lot of men will not go into the service. There is no doubt that the statement made by the Royal Commission that it is not on all fours with the inducements of land conditions is detening a number of men in Australia from going into the marine service who under better conditions would do so. If this Conference refuses to give better conditions, we are doing no good, and if you refuse to give retrospective conditions you are doing that which is deterring the se.unen from going on these ships. It is a very big rjuestion, a very important question, and I hold most decidedly that if a ship has neit the conveniences—l don't care whether she is built now or hereafter or before—she should conform to them in the same way as Mr. Hughes says a factory is compelled to conform to certain conditions, even though the factory was built long before the principle was established. I do not think the Conference will have much effect unless it deals very clearly with this particular question. In one case we- are dealing with the question of th. expense to the shipowner; in the other case we are dealing with human life and health. I say human life and health should go before the expense to the shipowner. To my mind, LBO feet should be the limit. Sin JOSEPH WARD: This is a very important matter, and 1 think there ought to be some- effort to compromise it to get out of a difficulty, and it struck mi' during the- discussion that perhaps this might meet the position : 'That it !«• a recommendation to the Board of Trade that where practicable the accommodation lie fixed at 100 feet, such alteration to be made two years from date-, and with steamships built on and after 31st July next, the minimum be fixed at 120 feet.' Hon. DUGALD 'THOMSON : I do not know that that resolution of Sir Joseph Ward's is necessary, because- I understand the only question raised by Mr. Hill is with regard to vessels engaged in the coastal trade of Australia. Is the point that is raised a matter of much importance?

Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : The shipowners don't went to give more than 72 feet. mi. WILLIAM LYNE: Why should there be ani interference with our coastal trade regulations! Hon. DUGALD 'THOMSON: Mr. Hill has only raised it in connection with the vessels engaged in the coastal trade of Australia, as to whether it would not be just to consider that vessels already built could not piovide the accommodation, and therefore should not be compelled. Sin WILLIAM LYNE: Does not that apply to our own coastal vessels, too? lies. W. M. HUGHES : After all, it is only in connection with such ships that this Conference can deal. With other ships this Conference has no concern. We are here to deal with ships that are engaged in the- Australian trade, and engaged in travelling from hen- to Australia, and, therefore, no matter how insignificant by comparison or numbers those ships may be, we are here to endeavour to draw up something that will suit them. Now, Sir Joseph Ward suggests 100 cubic feet in the case of existing ships. I say, if a ship now provides 72 feet, and you say she shall not engage in coasting trade unless she provides 100, and you say that can be done, I say then that the whole ease has I.ecu given away, because if you can make such stiu. tin a I alterations as will piovide 100 cubic feet, it appears to me you could make such structural altera liens as would provide 120 cubic feet, because, after all, with a crew of, say, 40 all told—and this will mostly apply to mail steamers—it appears to me 800 cubic- feet more than that would be required at the outside. Captain CHALMERS: These vessels have a Draw of 240. Hon. W M HUGHES: What vessels? CAPTAIN CHALMERS: The Orient Line. Tin: CHAIRMAN : I am told that the best class of vessel, where you can always get good sailors, is just the class of ship where there is structural difficulty in accommodating the crew. Hon W. M HUGHES : Why? Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : They say, because- they have- provided wash-houses and mess rooms. llo\. W. M. HUGHES: Not very l.mg ago I was on i very good ship, and the wash-house accommodation consisted of a bucket and the free use of the latrine. That is a very common thing, and you may see it on some of the best steamships. Mu. NORMAN HILL: Surely it is worth consideration that New Zealand has provided that this is not te. In- retrospective, and Australia in 1901 put clown in the Bill 72 feet. mi: WILLIAM LYNE: We are not doing that now. Mn. NORMAN HILL : But it is only two and a half years back. Sm WILLIAM LYNE: That point was objected to when the Rill was brought forward. Mn. NORMAN HILL: The Government must have thought that was reasonable. There is one other point. Our Parliament considered the question last Session. and substantially increased the minimum from 72 to 120 on every new ship, and in forcing up the standard. we venture to think it is an act of justice to excuse the old ship. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: I do not know whether you are overlooking tin' fact that our coastal trade is largely carried out under tropical conditions 72 feet on the- Atlantic- would lie better than 100 on the AusI Lilian coast, provided that the men had to sleep in the forecastle and not on the deck. Going round Australia, ships carry a cargo of fruit, and it is impossiblefor men to sleep on deck, therefore, they have to use ihe forecastle, ami it is necessary it should be- well ventilated ami r ny. Mn. NORMAN HILL: That does not apply to oversea passenger ships, because the men continuously sleep on deck.