42

A.—sa

HEI'OHT OF PROCEEDING* OF THH CONFERENCE.

" shall apply to all vessels, except in cases where the "Minister is satisfied that the character of the struc- " tural alterations necessary, in order to comply with the " limit, would be unreasonable and in those cases the "requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act" or Acts— "Act, I suppose it would be—" shall be deemed sufficient.' Mb, COX : I do not like referring it to the Imperial Act, because then you get a conflict of jurisdiction between the Acts. I think it would be better to leave out any reference to the Imperial Act. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: This is merely declaratory; because, of course, every shipowner is either subject to your law or to some other law —to OUT law, for instance. Mr. COX : He may be- subject to both. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: He must be subject to one, at any rate. Mr. COX : Certainly. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : If he is not subject to ours, . \m- ask that he shall be subject to yours. Mr. COX : It is perfectly clear that he must be subject to ours ; and, why put that in ? Hon. W. M. HUGHES: Of course, it is perfectly clear; but, at the same time, this is a statement of what we really mean. The man in the street, or the man in Australia (who is generally in the street), wants to know, "What does this mean? What will happen? "Are they to have nothing to regulate them at all?" Yes, they must comply with the Imperial Act. Mn. COX : Of course, everybody knows that a ship must be under some law or other; it must be under the Imperial Act. Mr. BELCHER : You are coming to this point, are you, that your Australian Bill is going to provide for more space than already exists? Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Yes. Mn BELCHER: A ship which could not comply with that, would then comply with the provisions laid down in the Imperial Act? Hon. W. M. HUGHES: Yes. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : 72 feet. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I am perfectly willing to admit that everybody ought to know the law, but they do not. Mn. BELCHER : Can you not get over that difficulty by specifying the minimum space allowed by the Shipping Act '.' Hon. W. M. HUGHES: If you like, I will put that in my amendment. Mr. COX : I think it is cltmrer, because it tells them exactly what to do, rather than carrying them from one Act to another. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I will move this Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I should like to say a word, first. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I should like to move it first, and then we shall get it down in black and white. lam going to move practically Sir Joseph Ward's motion again with an addendum : " That the limits of cubic and "superficial space for the accommodation of seamen prescribed by Cedonial laws should apply to existing "vessels, except in cases where the Minister is satisfied "that the character of the structural alterations necessary "in order to comply with the limit would be unreasonable, "in which case the owner of the ship shall appropriate " for accommodation to the seamen or apprentices space "not less than 72 cubic feet, and 12 superficial feet " measured on the deck or floor of that space." Sir WILLIAM LYNE : The objection I have to mentioning 72 cubic feet is that if you mention that in the resolution it becomes the maximum, instead of the minimum Hon. W. M. HUGHES : It cannot. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I know how these things are worked ; it gives an excuse, if an excuse is wanted.

Hon. W. M. HUGHES: That can only apply to vessels that are exempt. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : But once you fix a minimum, the officials who examine and report to their Minister have some sort of guide as to what is wanted in that regard ; and they come to 72 cubic feet as the maximum. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: You can move another figure. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I am not going to move anything at present. That has come up since. But, in reference to this resolution, I feel as strongly as anyone here, and as anyone from Australia or New Zealand, in favour of the alteration of old ships, to get them as nearly as possible to the requirements of the new; but for the life of me, I cannot see what earthly harm is going to take place if you leave the matter entirely in the hands of the local Government, because that is what the resolution does. And if you pass the resolution here it does not follow that the resolution is going to be put into an Act of Parliament. In this Act, or this Report, there is nothing very definite; and the question was laised by Mr. Thomson the other day as to retrospection. I am fighting for retrospective legislation in a sense, to get it as near as possible to what new ships have to conform to ; but it does not follow that you can get everything you want through a House of Parliament. And now that we have heard an expression of opinion from Sir Joseph Ward, which is very strong on this point, that if the shipowners are agreeable, to leave the matter practically in the hands of the local Government, which means the local Parliament. I know Mr. Hughes well enough to be fully aware that if the Minister did not carry that out properly he would soon have him by the throat. And whilst Mr. Hughes is in Parliament the thing is quite safe, and this will be carried out in its entirety. There are a good many other gtmtlemen also who will see that it is done. If we are left unhampered in this way Parliament would pass regulations, and very likely would provide power to pass regulations, and Parliament will discuss this matter; and we shall be backed up by a resolution voted by this Conference, unanimously perhaps, which is a very strong point, regarding retrospective legislation. But if we have a resolution only consented to by a portion of the Conference and not by the shipowners, it gives us a little harder work to get the Bill through Parliament. Another point is this : it may be that some ships—l hope there are very few—but I indorse every word Mr. Hughes has said about the insanitary condition, and not only the insanitary condition, but the little thought that is given to the men on board ship to have their meals in comfort; and I see there is a special provision here with regard to this very matter. All these things ought to be taken into consideration by our local Parliaments or local Ministers; and if the Ministers, who have the power of their Parliament behind them, allow ships to go that can be altered, and will be altered as nearly as possible to the requirements of the new ships, and do not do it, they will suffer for it. But, once you put a restriction upon it, I am afraid that is almost a direction as to what is to be done. And, strongly as lam in favour of retrospective legislation and to making every ship afloat on the water conform to the new ideas and the new regulations for comfort, still there are ships on which you cannot possibly carry that out by approaching perhaps to the requirements of the new ships. I am sure no one will accuse me of giving way on any point if I do not see some fairly good reason for doing so, but I must say that after the discussion last night, I looked into this matter, and again this morning, and I have not seen my way as to what course to take ; because I very much object to the idea of leaving these matters to the Court. But this resolution seems to me to give ns unlimited scope under the direction of our officers and under the direction of the Ministry: and I do hope Mr. Hughes may see his way. as we others do, to meet it in some way or the other, and let us ge-t the matter settled. Tin: CHAIRMAN : Can we get the opinions of the delegations? I do not want to shorten the discussion unduly, of course. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : I think we ought to try to arrive at a resolution unanimously. That is really another amendment of Sir Joseph Ward's original proposition; and I would like to know if it would meet, the shipowners' views that the limit of accommodation