THE INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 11585, 22 October 1901, Page 3

THE INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL.

In the course of a lengthy article dealing 4h the Inter-State Commission Bd, the " Times," afer discoursing on the man tta. neTds of Australia the of the shipping facilities afforded her Dy r ves .elso all nations, and the insignificant ' proportion of Australia's towards her shipping necessities says "She has neither the means of buying shijs nor the sailors to man them. With difficulty she provides her local cratt. Under the* conditions British and foreign shipping has been welcomed and• «k»£ ased Bv common consent it has Deen ?eftoutside of colonial politics, and the wisdom of so leaving' it has been abundantly proved by the logic of evenstetralia owes everything to .untrammelled private enterprise'in shipping and especially to the keen competition of those great European organisation? which conduct the mercantile operations of the globe From this it is reasonable to expect that, on the establishment of the .Commonwealth of Australia, giving promise of a higher and broader national life, the supreme value of the shipping trade, and the danger of molesting or restricting it in. any way would have been more fully "cognised than ever. There is evidence that this was so when the Commonwealth Act was framed. The wording of the Act is eminently indicative of a desire to respect the rights and liberties of foreign-going shipowners. By clause 5 it strictly confines the operation of the Constitution and laws to 'all British ships, the Queens J-hips of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are m the Commonwealth.' This obviously relates to coasting vessels only. Indeed, it would

not be easy to devise phraseology more sharply differentiating coastal shipping from ocean-going shipping. Moreover,-this distinction is scrupulously observed all through, the Act. There is nowhere a hint of any jurisdiction over commerce outside the Commonwealth. Yet, no sooner

had the Parliament been elected and got to work than measures were introduced

which betrayed a desire to .impose restrictions on foreign-going shipping. The first attempt was hi the Post Office Bill, where it was proposed to forbid the employment of Asiatics on board mail steamers. The

i Secreary of State at once .pointed out that this was ultra vires, inasmuch as it vio- I lated existing contracts and international law. The Government thersfane dropped ' it, but declared that it had their sympathy, and would be borne in mind in making future mail contracts. The next step was a clause in the Customs Bill requiring payment of duty oji all stores for use by crews or passengers of foreigngoing ships at the first port of .arrival in Australia. This was stiongly opposed by Mr Reid, the leader of the Frsetrade party, on the ground both of legality and of public policy; but it was, nevertheless, carried in both Houses. The shipping companies have made a vigorous and united protest against it, and are even trying to get the Royal assent withheld from the Bill. The mere amount in dispute is trifling. It is estimated at £15,000 a year. But the principle involved is important, because the proposed law is deemed unconstitutional. StilL if this were all, the shipping companies might easily accommodate themselves to it, or might- resist it in the courts. Certainly they could not expect the Imperial Government to disallow the Customs Act. and get into an angry conflict with the Commonwealth solely on account of a clause which, however inhospitable in intention,- is not likely to have much practical.«effect. Unfortunately, they have a far more substantial cause of alarm; and as to this, they expect to be supported not only by the British Government, but by the Governments of other countries." " The Times " then declares the inter-State Commission Bill to be " altogether beyond the limits of the Commonwealth Act," and having briefly enumerated the principal features of the' Bill concludes that " the Act might con-1 ceivablf be workable as regards coasting vessels, and even as regards foreign-going vessels when trading from port to port, in Australia; though evdn there-wholesale evasion would be the rule. But as regards the shipping trade between Australia and other countries, no such law could be tolerated. The nine lines of mail steamers, for instance, trading as they do with many other countries on their route could not possibly comply with the law confining 'them to a shcedule of uniform rates prescribed for them by thiee Commissioners L in Australia, and liable to be altered at the caprice of those gentlemen 'on the complaint of any person.' Freedom ot contract and fixity of contract are the first essentials of shipping business; and all over-sea dealings are conducted on that basis, according to the supply and demand for transportation at different places and times. The object of the inter-State Commission Bill apparently is to force the whole carrying' trade between Australia and the rest of the world into one iron-bound system, with the Australian railways, and to control it, not as a business, but, as a Government department. Merely to. state, tha object is to demonstate its absurdity. But it is not surprising that the shipping companies deem their interests in serious ieopardy when such a Bill is proposed as iXvernment measure by.the Barton istry who claim to command a in the Commonwealth Parliament.