OVERSEAS SHIPPING

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 31 October 1933, Page 6

OVERSEAS SHIPPING

strAmje l anomalies. Many RfesTttitrrioNS. The 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, reports the Auckland .“Star.” The discuSsibn arose as: A result of th'e news emanating from Canberra that the Commonwealth Government viewed favourably 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 conversations were remarkable: To start at home, overseas. British ships trading to New Zealand are not allowed; to carry passengers between coastal ports, or move a tori of cargo. A pleasant summer holiday would be to’ join one of those large ships and move found in her froin port to port while she discharged arid loaded. It would he an extension of sea cruising that has become so poprilar in the past few years, but the companies are not allowed to carry Such passengers, arid the public are denied what might be a very enjoyable method of passing, a vacation.

Ail interesting case is that of the Monowai and the WanganeMa. "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. CURidtJS EXAMPLES-. Australians would -like to travel round their own coast in the Strathaird or the Orontes, hut their only chance of travelling oil these very fine vessels, other than when. going abroad, is when the companies . organise a trip outside Australian waters, or when in the apple seasori Hobart is a port of call. To go further afield, a British ship on British articles could not carry passengers from B-arotonga. in the Cook Islands, to -New Zealand. The conclusion from the argument was local restrictions have involved shipping through various causes to the disadvantage of the public and the convenience of the traveller and tourist. Curiously enough these restrictions are entirely opposed to the policy under which GrOat_ Britain built up, and so far has maintained, her position as the world’s greatest sea 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 Fraribe, Gentianv, Italy arid the United States, but the rejoinder'to this wrifld riibvembrit is l a thdfriy problem to which -has been found so far no eornplete solution. BRITISH OWNERS’ 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 fine qf that flame, writing in ‘ ‘Fair Play,” states the view of this section: * ‘To confiile 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 intef-Impefial trade we should be asking tliem to forfeit the advantages of tht 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.” Jt would vsehih tlrat as Regards shipping under our oWh flag this country and Australia have- imposed restrictions unknown else Where, hut the question of extending this system of arbitrary cdnti'Ol in sectional interests into the international field, is a much mb re complicated and probably dangerous business,..