53

A.—sa

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE.

was I was bringing this matter forwaid. However, I will postpone any further discussion on this head until the President is here. Siu WILLIAM LYNE: Do 1 understand that the bald word " manning," as put down in our programme of business, has reference to that resolution which was passed up to a point (resolution 5) yesterday—that the conditions imposed by Australian or New Zealand law as regards manning should only apply to vessels registered in those colonies, or engaged in their coasting trade. I am only asking whether this discussion applies to that. The. CHAIRMAN : I think not. The word "manning" was down on the agenda yesterday, and we disposed of it so far as that resolution could do; but it was put down' again, because it was thought there might be other questions arising upon it. Sm WILLIAM LYNE: I raised the point to the President about this very thing. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: We did not discuss the epiestion of manning at all. We only said that whatever was decided with reference to manning should only apply to certain ships. Tin: CHAIRMAN : We did not discuss what the manning exactly should be in any way, and I do not know that we, in the United Kingdom, have any concern with that particularly. I do not know whether the shipowners wish to say anything about it. Siu WILLIAM LYNE: The President said in reply to me that this was carried only up to a certain point. Mr. NORMAN HILL : To be dealt with under resolution 4. Sin WILLIAM LYNE: I am not satisfied with the resolution as it stands now, but what I want to see is a decision as to what are the vessels to be registered under our law. I'm: CHAIRMAN : I am anxious to get on to that. Sin WILLIAM LYNE: Am I in order in moving the motion now, of which I gave notice: —"That no " person should be employed as an officer on board any British ship registered in Australia or New Zealand, "or engaging in the coasting trade of those colonies, ■who is not (a) a British subject, and (o) thoroughly' "conversant with the English language." The CHAIRMAN :If we have disposed of the manning scale question generally, I think we could go on to pass that at once. Mr. NORMAN HILL: I am sorry if the position is not perfectly clear. We meant by supporting the resolution which proposes that manning should relate to vessels registered in Australia and vessels engaged in Australian coasting trade, to make it perfectly clear that Australia c mid legislate with regard to those vessels in any way it liked. We wanted no reservation on that point, but at the same time- we wanted to put it on record for what it was worth—not with a view of moving a resolution, or asking the Conference to agree- with us—but to put it on record that any kind of scale based on tonnage, or on coal consumption or Ire-grate area with regard to firemen, is a mistake, a delusion, and a srare. You cannot get any satisfactory scale- on any of those bases. Those bases as to the manning you provide in relation to the seaworthiness of the ship have no relation to the am,unit of work the man will do. It ignores altogether the enormous advances which are continually being made in labour-saving appliances. If you treat the manning of a vessel according to the tonnage, you might as well treat the hours of labour of a man working in a factory according to the size of the factory he works in. As far as I know, the first manning scale that was ever talked about in this country was in the reign of Elizabeth, and they laid it down as a principle then that there ought to be two men for every 3 tons. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Are you not sure that it was not two tons for every thiee men. Mr. NORMAN HILL: No, it was the other way about. That gives you the kind of idea. The CHAIRMAN : You do not propose that! Mr. NORMAN HILL: No, but if you go back to the kind of vessels which were in existence in your

Australian trade 50 years ago—if you take their tonnage and their caigo and their carrying capacity and the crews they had, and compare them with the steamers now, they prove we submit that tonnage is an absolutely fallacious oasis for calculating the seaworthiness of your ship. It is expressed in our Act of I'arliament that a vessel is unseawoithy unless she is sufficiently manned. But as for tonnage and coal consumption there were ceitain recommendations made in 1896. Well, since 1896 what have been the improvements in the facilities for working coal in the modern type of vessel ? There has been an enormous advance. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: No doubt; but there were plenty of snips going in 1896, which are still going. Mil. NORMAN HILL: And if you take further improvements—improvements in the direction of oil fuel and such things—any scale you can think of, except judging the ship on its own merits and the amount of work the men have to do, we believe is utterly fallacious, and what we would like, with all respect to the Commonwealth, and also to New Zealand, to do is, to place on record as our opinion, that a manning scale based, in the case of seamen, on tonnage, and in the case of firemen on coal consumption, or fire-grate area or indicated horsepower, is not necessary to secure the- safely of life at sea—any of these standards can only place a very varying and unceitain limit upon the amount of work required from the men, and must act as a serious check upon the shipping trade. Hon. W. M 111 HUES: Are you opposed to the principle of a manning schedule altogether ! For instance, do you oppose a manning schedule lor deck hands! Mn. NORMAN HILL: Entirely. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: For officers? Mr. NORMAN HILL: Entirely. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Y'our law lays down that you can send a vessel to sea without any certificated officers at all. Do you say that is right? Mn. NORMAN HILL: In our home trade—yes. It has worked for the last 53 years. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Oh! no doubt it has worked. Mu. NORMAN HILL: And we will show you the returns—the way those vessels have made their vovages the loss then has been, and such things. Hon. W, M. HUGHES: I have no doubt you have read the very splendid defence of the Rotten Boroughs. Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : I would like to say a word on this as one of the English delegates. I do not at all agree with Mr. Norman Hill in his conclusions with regard to the manning. As a member of the Manning Committee that sat for three or four years taking evide-nce-, I say that we did come to the conclusion —the majority of the members of that Committee—that it was possible to have a manning scale by tonnage for deck hands, and that it was possible to have a mannine scale of stokeholds on the consumption of coal, and we say, as far as we are concerned, that the manning of ships, at the present time, is done in a haphazard manner and that no regard is paid to the amount of work that the men have to perforin. And with regard to labour-saving appliances on board a ship, very little benefit have th,- firemen derived from any labour-saving appliances, and certainly very little benefit have thi deck hands received from such, and we are of the opinion that a manning scale ought to be adopted; and, as a matter of fact, the manning scale is in operation now, I beieye, on the New Zealand coast, ancT has worked satisfactorily. If it .s possible to work a manning scale there, there is no reason why it should not be worked m other parts of the Empire. I only want to put on record my view, that a manning scale ought to be adopted both for deck and engine-room. The CHAIRMAN : I understand that Mr. Norman Hill is not moving a resolution. He has made his statement and Mr. Havelock Wilson has made his statement; and those will go on the notes. th^ 0 HUGHES: I "''l "love a resolutionthat this Conference approves of the adoption of the principle of a suitable manning scale for all ships.