THE NAVIGATION CONFERENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13456, 8 April 1907, Page 5

THE NAVIGATION CONFERENCE.

POWERS OF DELEGATES.

MOTION BY AIbLKALIA.

THE ACCOMMODATION FOR OFFICERS AND MEN.

By Telegraph.— Press Association— Copyright.

London. April 5. At the Navigation Conference yesterday Sir W. J. Lyne contended that it. ,vas necessary to reserve the absolute right of the Australian and New Zealand Governments to make a survey of vessels if they think it

necessary. A long discussion took place relative to whether the new regulation | regarding accommodation for officers and men should he made retrospecI five. Sir W. J. Lyne and Mr. Hughes (Australia) were very emphatic as to the necessity for bringing British vessels up to Australian requirements in this respect. Mr. Hughes said the proposed Australian Bill provided that if shipwright and surveyors' certificates showed that, the necessary structural alteration, would be too costly or were impracticable, accommodation to the extent of only 72 cubic feet might be accepted provided ventilation and sanitation were otherwise satisfactory. Sir Joseph Ward said lie did not agree with the regulation being made. retrospective. He suggested that if it were impossible to make the alterations at a reasonable cost the Minister might decide the question subject to the right of appeal to the law courts. Sir W. J. Lyne and Mr. Belcher (New Zealand) thought that the regulation should be made retrospective.

Sir W. J. Lyne said that Australia was not, without a big struggle, going to surrender her right to deal with this matter. Mr. Mills (New Zealand) advised that the Minister should have power to exercise his discretion where structural alterations were impossible. Mr. Dugald Thomson (Australia) said he believed the Australian Parliament would meet shipowners reasonably in the matter. The question was adjourned.

OFFICERS TO BE BRITISH.

(Received April 7, 4.36 p.m.)

London*. April 6. Sir W. J. Lyne also proposed that officers must be British subjects. The Imperial delegates abstained from voting on the motion.

LAWS TO CHECK CRIMPING.

(Received April 7, 5.39 p.m.)

London', April 6.

At the Navigation Conference yesterday Sir W. J. Lyne, with a view to preventing crimping, moved, " That no man be permitted to engage as an able seaman aboard any British ship who cannot show that he is entitled to that rating." The motion was amended by the addition of the words " tie- period of sea service being three years."

Tho motion as amended was carried.

THE MANNING SCALE.

(Received April 7, 5.59 p.m.)

London, April 6.

Referring to the adoption of a manning scale'for seamen and firemen, Mr. N. Hill (shipowner) explained that owing to the enormous increase of labour-saving appliances a manning scale based on tonnage, coal consumption, and horse-pcwer would prove a delusion and act as a serious check to the introduction of laboursaving appliances. He opposed a manning scale for officers and deck hands. Australia's right to make a manning scale for colonial ships, he said, was not questioned.

Mr. Hughes (Australia) contended that the Conference ought to approve of the principle of a manning scale for all British ships. He gave notice of a motion approving of the adoption of a manning scale for all British ships. He thus raised the question of (he scope of the powers of the conferences.

Sir W. J. Lyne proposed that no person should be employed as an officer aboard any British ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coastal trade who was not thoroughly conversant with the English language. The motion was carried, though Mr. Hughes asked that, the vote be not taken until the Conference had decided on his motion regarding the powers of the Conference. Mr. H. L. Smith (Board of Trade), who is chairman, ruled that the Conference was not empowered to discuss what the British mercantile marine should do.

Mi*. Hughes interjected, "How, then, is it possible to secure uniform legislation He characterised as amazing a declaration by Mr. Lloyd George, that there is no prospect of any alteration in the British navigation laws for another 12 or 20 years.

The Chairman asked that the awkward question be postponed.

THE SHIPOWNERS' CASE

The British shipowners' representatives contended that it was absolutely impossible with the United J Kingdom's population to maintain the present mercantile marine without foreigners and lascars. The owners were often ignorant us to the ports their ships would visit, and were thus unable to comply with the divergent, standards of requirements which must act as toll-bars for the British marine, and as a bounty to foreigners if the same disabilities ! were not imposed on them. It was doubtful whether the proposed wages obligation would be advantageous ■ to Australia, as higher charges for ! oversea traffic were inevitable if i oversea* ships were compelled to i abandon the Australian coastal ' traffic. It would also be impossible 1 to frame a uniform bill of lading.

Respecting the retrospective character of the regulations regarding accommodation and ventilation and conveniences, Sir Joseph Ward moved, "That the colonial limit of accommodation should apply to existing vessels except in those cases which the Minister was satisfied that structural alterations required were unreasonable, the shipowner having the right in all eases to appeal to law."

After a long discussion the motion of Mr. Norman Hill (representing the shipowners) was substituted and carried. It provides that the Australasian Governments, instead of imposing new conditions involving structural alterations to vessels built prior to the enactment of such conditions, should require only the existing vessels which the local authorities consider unhealthy to be brought into a sanitary and healthful condition, to the satisfaction of the authorities.

.Mr. Hughes argued that the law ought to apply to all ships, but if structural alterations are practically impossible, the Minister might grant exemption regarding the cubic space, provided the regulations as to sanitary arrangements and ventilation were complied with. If necessary Parliament probably would allow the old ships two years to comply with the requirements of the law.

In the division, Messrs. Hughes. Havelock, and Wilson dissented from Mr. Hill's motion.

AN AGREEMENT UNLIKELY

London, April 5

Sir W. J. Lyne, in an interview with a representative of the Westminister Gazette, warmly defends the Commonwealth's Commerce Act and Anti-Trust Act.

The Morning Post, says that since it is impossible for a mercantile marine competing with the foreigner throughout the world to generally adopt Australian and New Zealand standards as to manning of ships, accommodation, etc., the only solution seems to be to make special arrangements for the Australian portion of the voyage, and for the coastal trade, the British shipowners finding ample compensation in the promised preference, which thus would become the basis of colonial policy, domestic and Imperial.

FOREIGNERS IN BRITISH

SHIPS.

MINISTER FOR MARINE'S VIEWS.

[itY telegraph, —press ASSOCIATION.]

CiTRtSTOHUHCHj Saturday

The cable message sent from London in regard to the Navigation Conference was lead with great interest by the .Minister for Marine (the Hon. J. A. Millar) who is in Ohri.stchurch. When he read Sir William Lyne's remarks, h e said, " I would very much like to see Australia following on New Zealand lines. Our Coastwise Trading Bill applies to our own coasts, but it will not apply to other vessels until the other colonies reciprocate." Sir Win. Lyne, in a memorandum he read at the conference. said that Australian requirements make it necessary that foreign ship* should be subjected to all the requirements of British ships, and that the proportion of British seamen ought to be increased until the foreigners are reduced or entirely eliminated; Sir William also suggested that the Australian coasting trade should be restricted to vessels complying with Australian conditions, preference being given, as far as possible, to British ships engaged in the coastal trade, and that the shipping laws and shipping requirements should be uniform throughout the Empire. "There is no doubt," continued Mr. Millar, "That this is the only effective way of increasing British trade generally and protecting our own trade. It is only a matter of some years when a, fairly large percentage of the people of this colony will have to follow the sea. This fact ie not very apparent at present, while our industries are increasing, and are able to absorb a large portion of the rising generation, and while land settlement is doing its .share; but when those means of absorption have reached their maximum strength the sea, will claim a percentage of our boys. We should, therefore, take step* to increase the percentage of Britishers in both our Home and coastal vessels. " It is a more serious question than most people seem to realise, that while, there is a demand for a better defence of the Empire. the Empire's vessels, even in the navy, are compelled to carry a large proportion of other than British-born subjects. Anybody rati see what til© effect of this may be on the nation that carries about three-quarters of the world's trade. 1 think that Sir William Lyne ie right—Australia and New Zealand will work well together, as the proposed Australian Navigation Bill is similar to the New Zealand Shipping and Seamen Act. Both are the effect of conditions which have arisen on our coasts, and which prevent the growth of locally-owned shipping and the employment of our own. '