A.—sa

65

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE

Mb. LLEWELLYN SMITH : The language of the Australian Bill seems to me to be quite fair—"a vessel " must take on board passengers or cargo at one port in " Australia to be carried to and landed or delivered at "another port in Australia." That is the wording of the Australian Bill. Do you gain anything by adding the word '' coasting '' ? Mb. COX : What I want to exclude is Australian conditions applying to a ship registered in Great Britain which, after going to Australia, goes round the coast of Fiji; when she leaves Australia and goes to Fiji or to German New Guinea, she is then no longer in the Commonwealth. Mb. LLEWELLYN SMITH : That is covered by the previous words. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: Take the case of a ship; she comes to Sydney, discharges her original cargo, takes a cargo to Fiji, and brings one back from Fiji to Sydney. Mb. COX : She is not coasting. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : We should regard it so. Mb. COX : That does not matter. She may compete as much as she likes, but she is not-coasting. You cannot regard as coasting every ship that competes with yours. Mb. BELCHER : It is coasting of that kind that the Commonwealth wants to deal with. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Would not this wording pass as it is ? Ido not see any objection, even from that point of view. lam opposed to it, but as to the clearness of the meaning I do not see any objection. Mb. NORMAN HILL : I think we should be content to take the wording from the Commonwealth Bill, and, in taking it, we fully recognise that the Commonwealth has the power to legislate with regard to vessels that come under that definition, but we would make a very strong representation against the inequity of extending all the conditions that are made applicable to the vessels engaged habitually in the coastal trade to the oversea vessels which only, incidental to their oversea voyages, carry passengers or cargo between Australian ports. We are not challenging the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth to enforce these conditions, but we do contend it would be against the best interests of the Commonwealth to do so. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : We will look after that. Mr. NORMAN HILL : Whatever regulations or restrictions or obligations you would impose upon a shipowner, you must remember, as the saying is, that it always has to come out of the main hatch. Now we, the shipowners, are responsible for providing the main hatch and keeping it going. Sib WILLIAM LYNE : I think we are, because we pay you for doing it. Mb. NORMAN HILL : We think it is of the greatest importance that the oversea service of the Empire should be maintained as far as possible by the British, and we cannot do it unless we can make it pay. The President of the Chamber of Shipping dealt very exhaustively at this year's meeting with the returns on the capital invested which were made to the shareholders for a large number of years. Those figures were most carefully compiled, and you will see For a good many years there has not been a fair return of the capital invested. If you chocse to impose coastal conditions on the vessels which are engaged incidentally in the coasting trade, it will cripple the service; it will lessen the service ; or we shall have to make up the cost in some other way. We shall not he able to give you good services for the same money, and in some cases we shall have to withdraw services. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Why won't you be able? Mb. NORMAN HILL : Because it affects the earnings of the ship when you impose all these conditions. One point that we lay particular stress on is the wages. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : What particular services are you alluding to?

10 -A. sa.

Mr. NORMAN HILL: The incidental services that the Lines give you, taking passengers between their first, or second, or third port of call. We understand you lay particular stress on the wages. Your contention is, that in order to get equality between your coasting vessels and the oversea vessels, which are taking these passengers incidentally to a long sea voyage, you must make us pay your full wages to every man on board. That is not putting us on an equality. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : Why not? Mr. NORMAN HILL : How many passengers do we take ? Sib WILLIAM LYNE : You take the bulk. Mr. NORMAN HILL : We do not take a boat full of passengers. If you make us pay full wages to every man on board, you are treating it as if we were carrying a full list of coasting passengers. There are many other ways in which we are already punished. Take the amount we pay in Suez Canal dues. Sib WILLIAM LYNE : I shall not like you to bring that up because I might have to refer you to the reply you gave Mr. Deakin. Me. NORMAN HILL : We feel most sore about it. We contribute to the Government about £600,000 a year. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Why don't you object? Mb. NORMAN HILL : We have. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I thought you did not like any Government interference at all ? Mb. NORMAN HILL : Certainly we don't. Still less if it takes £600,000 a year as shareholders of the Suez Canal. Look at the amount that we out of our earnings contribute for the Imperial Services, and you have the service of our vessels for which we have to pay. Now we have plenty of inequalities, and the idea that we have to toe the line because we carry a certain number of passengers and a certain amount of cargo, that we have to pay your wages in order to toe the line and put us on an equality with your ships, is not business. Sir WILLIAM LYNE: First of all, with regard to the Royal Commission. This is not as to our powers, but our intentions. I think you may take it in the original Bill—l have not seen the provision—but in our recommendation it was proposed to exempt mail steamers carrying passengers between Fremantle and the Eastern States. Mb. PEMBROKE : The principle was dropped when it was convenient. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Never mind, I am only saying that this is our intention. Therefore, it is no good drawing these harrowing pictures of what may happen. It won't happen to anyone who gives us a regular service. Ships that pick out the eyes of the cargo, as some tramps do, don't give us any good service at all. There is only one company that carry cargo habitually, and that is the White Star from Hobart to Albany. I do not know of any other. Mb. ANDERSON : I think that is the only exception. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : We propose to exempt mail steamers until the Trans-Continental Railway is built. I do not think you will find that Parliament will deai ungenerously with you in that way, but we must have the right to act as we please. Mb. LLEWELLYN SMITH : On the question of passengers, a point has occurred to me that there may be cases, and I believe there are, in which- a passenger is carried from the United Kingdom to Australia and breaks his journey; he has his ticket to Sydney and breaks his journey at Fremantle, say. He ought to be allowed to be carried on. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Oh, yes. Mb LLEWELLYN SMITH: And the same case might occur with merchandise on through bills of lading transhipped; there is a part of that carried which is technically between two Australian ports.