SHIPPING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 252, 25 October 1933, Page 8

SHIPPING.

MANY RESTRICTIONS. SOME STRANGE ANOMALIES. FOREIGN SUBSIDIES. Tlie question of the hedging about of shipping by all sorts of artificial restrictions was the subject of conversation the other day among a group interested in this matter. The discussion arose as a result of the news emanating from Canberra that the Commonwealth Government viewed lavourably a prohibition against the Matson liners carrying passengers between Australia, New Zealand and Fiji on the ground that the heavy subsidy paid these vessels by the United States made the competition unfair as against steamers flying the Union Jack. Some of the cases quoted during the conversation were remarkable: To .'start at home, oversea British ships trading to New Zealand are not allowed to carry passengers between coastal ports, or move a ton of cargo. A pleasant summer holiday would be to join one of those large ships and move round in her from port to port while she discharged and loaded. It would be ail extension of sea cruising that has become so popular in the past few years, but the companies are not allowed to carry such passengers, and tlie public are denied what might be a very enjoyable method ot passing a vacation. An interesting case is that of the Monowai and the Wanganella. When running to Melbourne the latter can carry passengers to and from Sydney, but the former is in the same position as the mail steamers and must take no one who pays a fare. Some Curious Examples. Australians would like to travel round their own coast in the Strathaird or the Orontes, but their only chance of travelling on these very line vessels, other than when going abroad, is when the companies organise a trip outside Australian waters, or when in tlie apple season Hobart is a port of call. To go further afield, a British ship 011 British articles could vnot carry passengers from Rarotonga, in the Cook Uands, to New Zealand.

The conclusion from the argument was local restrictions have involved shipping through various causes to the definite disadvantage of the public and the convenience of the traveller and tourist. Curiously enough these restrictions are entirely opposed to the policy under which Great Britain built up, and so far has maintained her position as the world's greatest Bea carrier of both passengers and goods. The heads of—the great English companies are naturally perturbed at the policy of heavy subsidies that has been adopted by France, Germany, Italy and the United States, but the rejoinder to this world movement is a thorny problem to which there lias been found so far no complete solution. British Shipowners' Views. Many of the prominent shipowners in Great Britain are definitely opposed to the proposal to confine the Imperial coasting trade to British ships. Mr. A. H. Bibby, of the well known line of that •name, writing in "Fair Play," states the view of this section: "To confine the Imperial coasting trade to ships under the British flag would be most undesirable (he thinks), as it would tend to restrict trade and bring about international complications which the position does not warrant." Another controller of shipping puts the same views in slightly different language: "As for the proposal to confine the Imperial coasting trade to British ships (he writes), the general,opinion of the industry is that it would be a gross blunder even to suggest it. If we encouraged the rest of the Empire to reserve inter-Imperial trade we should be asking them to forfeit the advantages of the open freight market. We should also endanger the policy of freedom and equality throughout the world which is vital to British shipping and world trade." It would seem that as regards shipping under our own flag this . country and Australia have imposed restrictions unknown elsewhere, but the question of extending this system of arbitrary control in scctional interests into the international field is a much more complicated and probably dangerous business.