66

A.—sa

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERBNCH

Sib WILLIAM LYNE : We do not mean to interfere with that. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Are you speaking of cargo or passengers only? Mb. LLEWELLYN SMITH : I will take them separately, but I was speaking of both. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : If you are going to talk about passengers, that is all right; but with cargo, you can only tranship into a coastal boat or one of your own boats kept for that purpose. Mb. LLEWELLYN SMITH : What I had in my mind was some such proviso as this : "A vessel shall not "be deemed to be engaged in coasting merely because it "carries between two Australian or New Zealand ports "passengers holding through tickets to or from some "oversea place, or merchandise consigned on through bills "of lading to or from some oversea place." Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Leave the merchandise out. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : I will ask the shipowners whether it is so important to have the merchandise ; it seemed to me it was fair. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : It would be distinctly unfair. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : That is not what is meant. That would go in a coastal vessel. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We have this law in operation in New Zealand, and I will tell you what we do there. If a tramp steamer came to New Zealand with a cargo and part of a cargo for Auckland and she landed away down South, they could take it away in the next steamer or book by a local steamer to its local destination without being deemed to engage in the coastal trade. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: Another steamer! I should not agree with that. Directly they put their cargo on the wharf and take it up in a boat subsequently, although such boat may belong to the same company, it is obviously engaging in the coastal trade. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : Clearly, if it is not an oversea boat; but it might be another oversea boat. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Take a concrete case. Sup?osing the " Ormuz " brings cargo to Fremantle consigned rom London to Albany; the Orient Company does not stop at Albany, but it might suit them to stop at Albany with, say, every alternate boat. Then the second boat, say the " Orontes," came and picked up that cargo and took it to Albany, personally I do not think coastal conditions could be said to apply. Mr. ANDERSON : Let me put another concrete case. I think the cases in which we want permission for cargo to break its journey are rare. But here is a ease. During the last year we have been carrying butter from Brisbane, and in order to save a week in the conveyance of that butter we can put it on a P. & 0. ship in Sydney sailing a week ahead of the steamer carrying the butter from Brisbane. I do not think it expedient that such a transaction as that should be called engaged in coasting trade. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I should say that is perfectly right. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : Just as though you had carried it in your own boat. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : When cargo is consigned direct to London, if the P. & 0. like to fetch it down to Sydney I think that is all right. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Mr. President, I must express my dissent, and I do it in very few words, to this proposal to shut out oversea boats and especially British boats from any incidental coasting trade that they carry on in the course of their oversea voyage to Australia. I am not going to enter into the full reasons of my objection ; the Minority Report of the Commonwealth Commission has already set out most of those' reasons. I would only say in a word that we propose to give—and to that I do not object, I think it is a reasonable claim on the part of the coastal companies—we propose to give those companies security against the interference of vessels trading on our coast and regularly competing with those companies under conditions not so onerous as those

imposed on the coastal boats. Now I think the coastal boats put forward a good claim when they required that protection; they are getting that protection, and consequently they are being secured. They are being secured from what was a danger, and they are obtaining a trade that was sometimes diverted from them by vessels trading continuously on the coast not under Australian conditions. Having obtained that, they seek something further; they seek to stop that incidental taking of passengers really — because you cannot say it affects cargo at all Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Not yet. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Nor can it in my mind. They seek to stop that incidental carrying of passengers and cargo —they do not even limit it to cargo, they demand the stoppage of passengers also —which has been carried on by oversea vessels, principally mail steamers, from the first, and which has helped to give us these vastly improved, more regular and more speedy oversea services. As the income of the lines has been increased % to some extent by that traffic, it has assisted in enabling our producers to obtain a regular, ready, quick outlet for their productions, and especially the productions of perishable goods, in the British markets. I do not think it is in the interest of Australia to reduce the capability of those lines to improve their vessels, increase their refrigerating space, and increase the speed of landing perishable goods on the British market. But leaving that out of the question altogether —and I venture to say I have the Australian interest quite as much at heart as any of the other Australian delegates—l think it is rather unkindly, especially in the case of British vessels, to interfere with the incidental and in no way seriously competitive trade, especially passenger trade, which has always been conducted between one Australian port and another in the course of a long oversea voyage. 'Then again it is reducing one of our own conveniences. Why should a passenger, if he wishes to go by a certain boat, or if the circumstances require him to go by that boat, be precluded ? That convenience is there, and is offered by British ships regularly every week, and I consider we should not deprive ourselves of it. Care of our own interests, where they are affected, is shown when we drop the principle as we do in that Majority Report of the Royal Commission as regards Western Australia. There is no railway there, and although our coastal boats are very good—excellent, many of the new ones—according to the Royal Commission Majority Report, travellers without the oversea steamers might not get sufficiently comfortable or frequent boats. Therefore, we at once propose to drop our principle for the sake of that convenience. Well, I say if that should be done with Western Australia, there is greater reason to do it in the case of Tasmania. Now that is from the Australian standpoint. Probably the rest of the Australian delegation will not take my view. I would put it to them, however, whether they cannot consider two things. One is that if there is to be restriction it should so apply, that the danger should not exist to which Mr. Hughes has alluded—of vessels carrying goods, and making only short voyages from Australia, such as up to Java and Singapore, then coming round the coast and making a regular trading voyage in effect, but escaping because it was not so in name. That could be got over by settling that incidental trade of vessels taking cargo or passengers, but if not cargo, then passengers, from one port to another of Australia should not be considered coastal trade when the vessels are engaged in an oversea voyage which begins and ends beyond certain latitudes. That would secure Australia from any serious interference with the coastal trade, which might take place if you did not except Singapore or some of those near places. I would suggest whether they could not meet the British representatives to that extent. And further than that, I would like to point out to Sir William Lyne that his Ministry introduced another Bill—l think it wai the first Arbitration Bill—and it was proposed in that Bill to take means to stop any passengers or cargo being carried by boats on the Australian coast unless Australian conditions had been complied with. Sir William Lyne was not in charge of that Bill but another Minister, and it was advocated while it was before Parliament that the conditions should be made to apply to the whole of the voyage, and cause British boats to have to compete with boats of other nations on the whole voyage under those higher wages conditions. That you will see in Hansard. Sib WILLIAM LYNE : I believe that is correct.