THE SHIPPING ACT

Otago Witness, Issue 3590, 2 January 1923, Page 56

THE SHIPPING ACT

MR YOUNG'S ALLEGATIONS. WELLINGTON. December 26. Mr W. T. Young, secretary of the Seamen’s Federation, replying to the Hon. G. J. Anderson’s comment on the warning to travellers’ pamphlet, in the- Course of a long statement, says that the Minister failed to explain the sections of the Act actually suspended by him, because “the intended deception compelled him to refrain from straightforwardly informing the public” that his act in suspending sections 51. 52, 53, and 54 was for the express purpose of permitting ships to put to sea with unqualified and distinctly incompetent crews. Referring to the manning of the Mararoa on November 14, he declares that she was manned with 95 per cent, of unqualified and incompetent men, who were mostly inexperienced youths recruited by force from the works of the Union Company at Evans Bay and elsewhere, and some from the Wei lington office, the only competents being two or three wharf foremen of the company. With this crew she was permitted to carry 700 passengers without additional lifeboats, although the passengers’ license only permits 350. Mr Young states that the Minister’s statement leaves the public with the impression that the free labour now employed is qualified as competent. I have to give the inferred pronouncement of the Minister a very emphatic contradiction, and to declare, in the interests of those using the ships for transit purposes, that 80 per cent, of the free labour is unqualified, incompetent, and incapable of launching or handling a boat or raft in time of disaster or at any other time. Mr Young also states that it has come to Ills knowledge that- persons undergoing imprisonment for offences and undesirable immigrants have been purposely released from gaol to fill jobs on board ships. In conclusion he says: “The Seamen’s Federation takes the full responsibility for the printing and distribution of the leaflet the Minister takes exception to, and all I have to do in the name of honest men is to tell the public that its comments are gospel fact, and at the same time challenge the Minister to prove the contrary.”