89

A.—sa

ItEHOHT OF PROOKBDISTOe OK THE CONFERENCE

Mb. HAVELOCK WILSON : Yes. a month. Yon will not find it then-, but if you refer to the Return of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, you "ill find there' the deaths on hoard of ships: you will s.-e the causes of disappearance- ■'jumped overboard," and so on. Well, 1 say that that is due to excessive work, and that it is not right to leave a shipowner to regulate that business in his own way. I say. thai the State ought to come in and say when a man is overworked and when he is not. Now, the Committee, which considered this question very carefully, said they would fix a scale with regard to the stokehole on tinconsumption of coal, and I think that is the lust basis on which it could be regulated. In tropical climates, if a man stokes 24 lons of coal every 24 hours, he has done very well. In cold climates he might do .'ij tons, but that means that in reality it may be o or 7 tons, because he has got to trim the coal from tin- bunker on to the plate-, anil I do support the recommendation ot Mr. Hughes for the- adoption of a proper manning scale. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : I should like to say .me word, please, because I must go. Tin: CHAIRMAN : I was going to suggest that we should adjourn now for luncheon. I think this would he a suitable time for luncheon. Sm WILLIAM LYNE: 1 should like- to get over my one word first, if you will allow me, because I may not be able to get back (o the minute. II is a matter more for the British members than for the Australians, although, of course, we are all anxious about it. I think we, as Australians, have got, in the other two resolutions, really what ws wen- aiming at, but I am still of opinion that it would be a good thing for the British Government if they could get something similar. For that reason. I feel inclined to vote for the words as alt ei eel now. 'The CHAIRMAN : Have they been altered? Sm WILLIAM LYNE: 'The words have been altered to " United Kingdom," I think it is. instead of " British." 'The CHAIRMAN : Yes, that is right. Sm WILLIAM LYNE: It is not a matter I should have brought forward, perhaps, but 1 would not like it to be understood that I am not in favour of all conditions of this kind. In this particular ease I shall vote- for il for that reason. I.ut 1 think that, as far as we- an- eon eeriic-el, we have got a great deal already in those two re-solutions. • ('The Conference adjourned for luncheon.) The CHAIRMAN : 1 think we might pjroc I with the discussion now. We will lake the shipowners' case. Mil. BELCHER : Before the shipowners an- .all.-.I upon to express an opinion in connection with this matter, perhaps I may In- permitted as one of the representatives from New Zealand ■ Thk CHAIRMAN : We have- heard the case of the seamen presented by Mr. Havelock Wilson and bj Mr. Hughes. I thought we would then hear what the shipowners have to say. and then, of course, the de-hale will go on afterwards. Mn. BELCHED : Very well, sir. 'Tin: CHAIRMAN : The debate will not conclude. 'Then 1 should like tin- representative of the Board of Trade, Captain Chalmers, to give the official view of the matter. Then it will be thrown open for general discussion. Mr. BELCHER : As long as you give me an opportunity of speaking. 'The CHAIRMAN : Oh. eertainlv. Now. Mr. Norman Hill. Mn. NORMAN HILL: With regard to the motion before the Conference I would wish, for the shipowners, to make it perfectly clear that we recognise- to the fullest extent that efficient manning is one of (he elements of seaworthiness. By efficient manning we

13—A, sa.

mean such manning as is nei-essan to secure Die vessel being a seaworthy ship. We do not take into oui consideration and so far the legislation of this country has not taken into consideration questions of | a l r; it has left that to be settled as between the masters and the men. But without any reservation we agree that ;i iressel that is insufficiently manned from the Mew of safety is not a seaworthy ship. Starting with that as our standpoint, we object entirely to the resolu I ion. ami I think we need only refer to'one observation made In Mr. Hughes in moving it to justify our objection. Mi. Hughes, you will recollect, said 'that it was absolutely necessary that his resolution should be quali Bed bv giving to the Executive the power to deal with special ships. Now, to our mind, from the manning I 1 "' 1 ' "i v|, w. every ship is a special ship. Y an no more la\ down hard and fast scales for nianniiwhat is efficient manning for the purpose of seaworthiness, than you can lay down hard and last rules with regard to the load line. Every vessel must be ju.l I on its own merits. We quite recognise that the Executive, in enforcing the law as it exists in this Rountry, has power to stop any vessel which bv reason of undermanning it believes to lie unseaworthy. We quite recognise that the Executive, in giving instructions to its officers, must lay down in general terms some- scales but those- are very different from Statutory Scales. We have suffered too much in this country from ihe enactment ot Statutory Scales, which we- have stood year after year notwithstanding the fact that the 'lass of vessels t.i which they are applied has entirely changed. We know that this kind of Statutory Scales must effectually retard improvement and development, as much as they punish reckless and improper action on tin- part .if the- ship owner. If the Executive in its instinct ions to it--officers, gave for their guidance certain rules or certain regulations, we could go to the- Executive and could show that we have- introduced improvements; we could show that what was necessaiy to-day will n.it be- neces sary I'm tin- new ships ot to-morrow. Therefore we feel most strongly that anything in the nature- of a hard and fast scale is to be fought against to the lit most of our ability, both in our own interests and in the interests of the country. There- is one other point we would like to refer to, and that is the basis put forward for the manning scales which has been adopted by the New Zealand ships and which was certainly suggested by the Australian Commonwealth in the Commonwealth Bill. Both those scales with regard to seamen you will not,- arc based on the net registered tonnage. Now there- is a controversy which is giving you a good of trouble at the present time in this country from which you will have gathered that the net registered tonnage has no real reference lo the size of the ship. May I one other point with reference to manning in the engine department. Tin- suggestion is that in th. Commonwealth Kill it was based on the urate surface, the grata area. You will see- in the Bill they treated one man as sufficient to work IN fee-t of surface at ordinary draught and 14 feet at forced draught. You see there- at one.- if you try to fix any senile of that kind the disturbing factor introduced by the- mechanical arrangements of the ship. The scale assumes that, working not nuclei i0n..1 draught, a man can take care of 18 feet, and that if hi' is working im.l.-i forced draught he can only take care of M superficial feet of that area. At once' you see the disturbing element introduced by the- n hanical arrangements of the draught. Now. sir. that is one disturbing factor which is in existence today, and which is recognised by the Bill. The report of the Royal Comm abandons tin- idea of grate surface, and suggest* it should be' on coal consumed. No consideration is taken of the conditions under which that coal has to be brought from where it is stowed into the furnace. When they wen- dealing'with draughts they had a certain regard fen- the mechanical arrangement of the draught, but when they an- dealing with the coal consumed they have no regard to the mechanical and labour-saving appliances which are involved, and the position of I liebunkers, and I will appeal to any practical man here whether ..ii all ships under all conditions he would be of opinion that three tons was a reasonable work for the it must depend upon the nature of the \ve>rk he has to do. In other words. I go barb to my first and m\ only point, that is that each particular ship, as to its manning, has to be judged by itself. That is our reason. If I may end as I began, we admit to tin- full that efficient manning is necessary to seaworthiness, but it is "illy by fudging the particular ship that you can s;i\ what crew that vessel must have on board to secure that orthineM.