7

A.—sa

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE.

" in which they are employed, to the nature and duration "of the voyage, and to the number of persons carried.'' Mr. NORMAN HILL: You have the power. It is not in any way provided in your Bill that compliance with our standard "shall be taken as compliance with yours. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : That is the gist of the whole thing. I'm: CHAIRMAN : Yes. Speaking generally, in dealing between nation and nation; but it is different as dealing between the Home Country and the Colonies. In dealing as between nation and nation it is the law ot the place which settles all those matters as we understand it. Sir WILLIAM LYNE: What would you do with foreign ships coming to Australia—German and oth The CHAIRMAN: Apart from the coast trade-. I should have thought there would have been the greatest difficulty, from the point of view of international law. for your regulating in any way the kind of life-saving appliances of that vessel carried on the voyage from the German port to y port. Speaking generally, we have always understood it is the law of the place which kites all those matters. Sir WILLIAM LYNE: These vessels carry our passengers. Tin CHAIRMAN : I thought of keeping coasting out for the present. Sir WILLIAM LYNE: Those vessels come the saunas British liners come and enter into the trade on our coast, anil though we do not interfere with them at sea, when they come- on our coast and do our trade, we think it is right that we should interfere with them. Mr. NORMAN HILL: But may we take it —taking the point separately — the voyage — not the coasting voyage —the oversea voyage —the voyage of a vessel which touches at foreign and your ports. Now we would not suggest —I do not think it is in the interest of British shipowners to suggest that you should say, " I "as you phase, do what you please on your ships." All we suggest is this, that if we point to standards which are enforced here and which we have to obey and observe in all other waters, if those standards substantially are of the kind that you have in your minds, that vou should then not make difficulty. It may be as it was with regard to the United States Government that we are most anxious to provide efficient life belts, but there is no sense in having two life belts on board a ship —I mean, speaking with great respect—we have eminent officials here —but the less we have to do with the official in managing our ships the better we believe the business gets on, and if instead of having to do with one official and one set of regulations, you have to think of differences in them all over the world which are required for each particular trade and special classes of ships —and directly you begin limiting trades to special classes of ships you must I think be punished in freights ; instead of having the ship which is serving the world at your disposal and instead of having the benefit of part of a round voyage, directly you get to the point where you have a variety of vessels conforming to particular standards for particular trades, then you have at once limited competition. You make special classes and you have to specialise in those trades. Now that we think is bad business for our customers. We know it is a most harassing bad business for ourselves, and the point we want to put is that if there is substantial compliance, substantial conformity with the standards—that one nation is now in the practice of accepting such substantial conformity from other nations, it is only reasonable we should ask for the I lonic- Country that the Colony should not put us in any worse position than other nations. Other nations accept this substantial conformity. That is the particular point that presses on us, and I think the points Mr. Llewellyn Smith has referred to are the particular instances dealing with the oversea trade, where we would be harassed and have our business made far more costly by the strict interpretation, certainly of the Australian Bill, and we would like to see tinNew Zealand Bill made absolutely precise : that conformity to these- standards shall be accepted—not that they may be. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : May I ask Sir Joseph Ward with respect to Section 197. Have yon made rules under that Act ■

Sir JOSEPH WARD: Yes, following the Board of Trade. Mr. WALTER J. HOWELL : Are they identical? Sir JOSEPH WARD : They may not be identical, but wherever there is a difference the Board of Trade, if they write to our Marine Department which takes the place of the Board of Trade in our Colony—we correspond with them and conform if we can. Mr. WALTER J. HOWELL: Taking it as a principle, you do accept the Board of Trade rules, as to Life Saving appliances Sin JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Sn: WILLIAM LYNE : What? Sir JOSEPH WARD: Tin- Board of Trade rules, which an- a different thin- from stipulations. We are in correspondence with them, and in all instances are agreed upon points where there have been differences. That does not raise the question of what the rate of wages is going to be. Tin: CHAIRMAN : That is a different point. Mr. JAMES MILLS : You spoke of vessels visiting the Colonies which are able substantially to comply with the requirements of the Board of Trade. How are they to ascertain that they do so Mr. NORMAN HILL: If we voluntarily subject ourselves to the Board of Trade survey, they do not issue a passenger certificate, but they issue a certificate to the effect that that vessel has been surveyed in accordance with the requirements of the Passenger Act, and subject to her being fitted and provided with berthing and other acce nimodation, she would be entitled to a Board of Trade certificate. Mr. JAMES MILLS : Why should not the Board of Trade give that certificate ? In New Zealand every lis surveyed—a survey equivalent to the Board of Trade -every vessel from 100 tons is subjected to the same- survey. British ships inn all over the world without a survey certificate, and with boilers which pass Lloyd's test, but they do not pass the Board of Trade test, and the moment these vessels apply for the Board of Trade certificate in the colony 10 lbs. is taken off the pressure; although the boilers are practically as good as the Board of Trade boilers, they will not pass the Board of Trade test. That is one point I intend to bring up. Could not the Board of Trade test be brought int.. line with Lloyd's? It seems absurd that a boat which carries Lloyd's certificate cannot pass the Board of Trade- survey because of some- technical difference in the building of the boilers. Captain CHALMERS: Do you mind telling us what the distinction is ? Mr. JAMES MILLS: Between Lloyd's test and yours. Captain CHALMERS : It is a distinction in the design of the boiler. Mr. JAMES MILLS: Presumably Lloyd's is good enough. Captain CHALMERS : Lloyd's is good enough as far as seaworthiness goes, but our standard is above seaworthiness—with regard to the purely cargo ships the fact of the vessel being allowed to go to sea is quite sufficient to show that she is seaworthy in our estimation Our surveyors at the different ports exercise strict supervision over every ship, and if they have reason to suspect any ship they go on board, and the fact of the ship being allowed to leave our ports is evidence that she is seaworthy. Mr. JAMES MILLS : As a matter of fact thev would not pass the Board of Trade survey because- ~'f some technical difference with regard to the boilers do not know what it is. Me. WALTER J. HOWELL : I think the whole trade is different in your colony. You say you must have a Government survey of every ship. Here we do not say that, we say that it would require an army of surveyors to provide for a survey of every ship. We think that the better plan is the one we have adopted in this