A.—4

386

10th Day.] Trade and Postal Communications [16 June, 1911. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. BUXTON : May I alter the amendment I proposed—I do not think there is any difference in our views—and say, " so far as they are prejudicial to trade " ? Dr. FINDLAY : That is better. Mr. BUXTON : I took advice on the matter, and it is the usual term used. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I would prefer "prejudicial to trade" to " in restraint of trade," because the latter would imply that we were quite satisfied with the combinations and their high rates so long as we cannot prove that they are in restraint of trade, which is a very difficult thing to do. Mr. BUXTON . I understand the point, and we will make the amendment " so far as such Conferences are prejudicial to trade." Mr. PEARCE : We in Australia hold very definite views on this question as the result of our experience of Shipping Conferences, and I will just give one instance to the Conference—a practical illustration of how they work, not merely on our coast, but also in international trade. Here is an instance given by a witness before our Shipping Commission, Mr. McPherson, who by the way is a member of the Council of the Chamber of Commerce of Melbourne : " In 1903, when I had 300 tons of iron to ship to Fremantle, I went to the shipping people to learn the rate of freight. They held a meeting, and then they gave me a quotation. They said : ' You will have to pay 18s. a ton now, but in twelve months' time, if you confine all your shipments to the ports of the North and the West to the Companies within the ring, we will grant you a rebate of 20 per cent.' In other words, I had to leave with them a hostage of 3s. 6d. a ton on the 300 tons, and let it stay in their hands for twelve months. Had I not agreed to confine all my shipments to the Association, I should have had to charge 18.9. a ton for the freight of the iron, and probably I should have lost the business." They handed in at that Commission the rules under which that rebate system was worked. Now as to the effect, out of 188,000 tons engaged in our Inter-State trade, less than 10,000 tons were outside the Shipping Ring, and their strength and their power to control our trade was due solely and wholly to the rebate system. Now as the result of that investigation and others we came to the conclusion that that was not a healthy thing for our trade, and we determined to break it up, and we introduced legislation on the lines of the Sherman Act; this legislation made these■ rebates illegal and they have now been abolished. But I want to point out that Mr. Buxton's view that the declaring of rebates to be illegal is going to break up Conferences, or that it is to prevent any co-operation between shippers in order to secure uniformity, has not been our experience. It certainly does not allow them to tie up the shipping, but they still have their Conferences; they still tend to compete so far as the despatch of their vessels is concerned; so that the Australian experience is a complete disproof of the statement put forward by Mr. Buxton that if you do away with rebates you do away with the regularity of trade. Our experience is that it does nothing of the kind. Mr. BUXTON : Do not say that it was my argument. Mr. PEARCE : No; but it was quoted by you. Mr. BUXTON : I carefully avoided giving an opinion on the matter, I think rightly, and I was only giving the arguments which you will find in the Blue Book given by the majority and the minority. I made it quite clear that it was not my argument.