A.—sa

125

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE.

What we want is not to make a rule that will encourage desertion. We know every inducement is given to seamen to desert. When we go to San Francisco, we have had to make regulations to keep the crimp from coming on board, but they often get hold of the men when they go ashore and say, " Come along, we will give you a good " time," and when a man has been at sea for three months he may yield to the inducements and go and have his good time and desert his employment, and the Board of Trade can tell us men might come home sometimes with a good deal of money, and how little is left when they get ashore at such ports as San Francisco. Why should they not have a good time? Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Rut they do that now. Mu. DUNLOP: Are the great Imperial shipping interests of this country to be sacrificed that men may have a good time? Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Would you say this is right? A captain in Newcastle gave evidence that he bested every seaman: that he had come in and out of port and never paid one man's wages. Mr. DUNLOP : I do not believe such a statement. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: It was Inspector McVane, I think. Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON : That was a Nova Scotia ship, and they very seldom pay wages on those ships. Mn. BELCHEB : There is another point in connection with this matter. Will you allow me to mention another practice that goes on in New Zealand ? It is this : A man is anxious to get away from the vessel. The master says, " Yes, I will let you go, but you will "get no money," and he takes him along to the shipping office and gives him a clearance in the shape of a discharge. Now I say if the master of a ship has power to let a man go, and can see the possibility of filling that man's place, the man who has earned the money is justly and legally entitled to it, and no man should he permitted to be discharged un'der those circumstances. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : But he has not fulfilled his contract. Mn. BELCHEB: Take another case Tin: CHAIRMAN : I am sorry. I thought you had just one point to make, but I laid down a rule this morning, and I think under the circumstances it was quite justifiable, that there should be not more than one speech by the same gentleman on the same motion. I did not want to interrupt yon until you had made that point. This discussion has been going on now for nearly an hour, and I think every interest has more or less been represented in the course of the discussion and that the thing has been exhausted. I will just say a word, if I may, on behalf of the Government. This is a recommendation to the Board of Trade to legislate; it is nothing to do with the Colonies, with the Commonwealth, or New Zealand, but it is purely a recommendation that we should legislate. That is within the purview of the Conference. I am not making that point at all, because we have accepted one or two recommendations of this character. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : This applies to all ships. It does not say that here, but it is meant to apply to all ships. The CHAIRMAN: No; this is a recommendation that we should legislate. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Yes. but you should apply it to all ships. The CHAIRMAN : I take it this is a recommendation to us that we should legislate. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Yes. but in respect of all ships. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : New- Zealand and Australia do not come in. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : You should legislate in respect of British shipping. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : But you legislate with regard to your own shipping.

Hon. W. M. HUGHES: Is Mr. Belcher's meaning that you should, in respect of your own ships, pay then full wages? Mr. LLEWKI.LV N SMITH : Yes. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: That is what I want to know. The CHAIRMAN : Now I have two objections to the resolution bearing that interpretation. First of all, we have dealt with this matter last year. I am not going to say that the settlement we arrived at was a final one, or altogether a satisfactory one, but here is something we arrived at last year after a good deal of discussion, and by agreement. This is not a thing that was thrashed out in the House of Commons where the seamen proposed a recommendation of this kind and were voted down. They met in Conference at the Board of Trade. I presided over that Conference, and Mr. Haveloek Wilson represented the seamen, and we had several representatives of the shipping community, and we agreed, and the agreement we arrived at is embodied in our legislation, and it undoubtedly marks an enormous advance upon anything which had previously been the law. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: Which section? The CHAIRMAN: Sections 61 and 63. Section 61 goes farther with regard to that than Mr. Hughes would be prepared to go in Australia, but Section 63 does not go quite as far as he does. We have gone further than he would in 61; we have not gone as far as he would in 63. But on the whole it represents an agreement which I thought ought to be tested by practice and experience for some time before we can accept any recommendation for altering it. My opinion is that it will work out all right, and that in the long run it will be found that shipowners will agree to give something to men whom they can trust; that is really what it comes to. There will be a certain discretion vested in the master as to the kind of men he will give his money to. To my mind that is not a bad thing. I do not want to say a word about sailors. Every shipowner and master will admit that there are difficulties when you get sailors on a ship. After they have been some time on the ship Hon. W. M. HUGHES : They cannot drink in New South Wales and Victoria. The CHAIRMAN : It does not all go in drink. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: We have stopped everything else a long time ago. The CHAIRMAN : I am sure it does not go in clothing altogether. It is an unsavoury topic, which I think we had better rather imagine than describe. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: The seamen would not .all it so. The CHAIRMAN : That is one objection with regard to desertions. We have a very serious problem, a i perial problem, to deal with. There are about 27,000 desertions a year. I am not convinced the shipowners are not partly to blame. I am not sure, but I think, some of the legislation was based on the assumption that shippers and captains were partly to blame, and a good many clauses were inserted in our Imperial Act with a view to stopping what we rather thought was a desire on the part of certain captains to encourage desertions, and in future they will not he able to make any profit out of them.' With regard to German desertions, there are two things to be said about them. It is true you may not have the same number of desertions from f lei man ships and French ships, and for two reasons : there is a greater sense of discipline among the German workmen, which is attributable to the fact that they have served two or three years in the Army. That does not merely apply to seamen. The second reason is that, after all, if a German deserts at Newcastle, he deserts among foreigners, men of a different race, men who talk a different language, and men with whom he has nothing in common. A Britisher who deserts there is among his own kith and kin; he is deserting among his own people, and therefore it is so much easier for a Britisher to get away than for a German or a Frenchman. Now, under the circumstances, I trust that the Conference will not think it