A MARITIME BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1898, 5 November 1913, Page 8

A MARITIME BILL.

USEFUL REFORMS. ALLUSIONS TO THE STRIKE. Tho Hon. I' 1 . M- B, FISHER moved tho second reading of tho Shipping and Seamen Amendment Bill, No, 2. Ho explained that it replaced a Bill already upon tho Order l'aper, and, with tho exception of. two minor points, embodied alterations approved at a conference convened by himself and attended by representatives of tho Seamen's Union and tho Shipowners' Federation. Section 1 of tho Bill inaugurated an important departure. Practically the proposal was to establish a seamen's labour bureau. A seamen's inspector would bo appointed, at any port, whose duty it would bo to keep a register of seamen and apprentices, and supply them, to be. entered on board ships at the port.. This, it was hoped, would put an end to victimisation of seamen by ' 'crimping" or otherwise. Another section provided for the m'oro efficient supervision of deck cargo. Provision was mado where a seamen missed his passage, his wages, effects, and discharge might bo left with a superintendent at tho port. The Bill contained some points of very great importance, both to the shipowners and to the seamen. He hoped that tho House would accord it considerate treatment, and that it would be placed upon the Statute Book this-session. Silt JOSEPH WARD (Leader of the Opposition) said that the Bill was a very valuable one in some respects. He wanted to be sure, however, that its provisions in regard to certificates, etc., would not unduly harass those engaged in the fishing industry. He also wished to know whother a provision in Clause 6, .that masters and seamen might mutually agree as to the final port of discharge,would over-ride ordinary articles Any agreement of the kind should be eilforced. The clauses relating, to deck-cargo demanded the attention'particularly of members representing northern districts, where scows were operating.

Mr. A. E. GLOVER (Auckland Central) said that the owners of scows were being harassed, and some of them had been driven out, of business. Ho would make a number of suggestions in Committee. ' Wharf Labour—A Proposal, Mr. AY. A. VEITCH (Wangauui) said that tho proposal to appoint seamen's inspectors at, tho different ports to control the maritime labour market seemed to him to be a step in the right direction. A 'moro comprehensive reform, however, was required. Soma attempt must bo' mado to grapple seriously .with tho problem of organising casual labour employed in connection with shipping. Possibly a subbranch of . the Labour Department might bo. created in every port to deal with .tho matter. - These 6ubrbranches could organise the casual labour on tho w'harves .in the employ of tho Government. At least 80 per cent-, of the waterside workers should be so organised and granted reasonable minimum wages, reasonable rates of overtimej and fixed servieo conditions, with provision; for superannuation. Mr. Fisher: There is nothing in tho Bill about work cn tho wharvos.

The Hon. W. 1L HERRIES called Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that tho Bill had nothing to do with waterside workers. He added that tho Government would rat'her not havo 'the question touched upon by Mr. Veitch raised at tho present time. . Air. SPEAKER ruled that it was oxit of order to refer to waterside work in discussing tho Bill. Mr. Fisher: Not one wharf labourer is affected by this Bill. ; Mr. Veitch said that ho was suggesting that t'ho men on t'ho water-front should be brought within tho province of this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER said tihat tho honourable gentleman might proceed, but must not refer to waterside work.

Mr. Veitch said that if he could not proceed on these lines ho did Hot wish to, speak at all. ! ■ Tho Shipping Monopoly. ■ Mr. P. C. "WEBB (Grey) supported tho appointment of seamen s inspectors, but submitted that tho men should havo a. voice in their appointment. Ho denounced the shipping monopoly in New Zealand, and urged the Minister to bring down a Bill enabling tho Houso to provide State ships. He went on to remark that while tho whole of the. industries of the country were suffering, while farmers were unable to get .their,-produce away, while business men wero complaining, workers looking at one another, and mounted policemen drinking -. The.Speaker here called Mr. Webb to order.-

Mr. Webb urged that a State ferry service should be established .between the two islands. This Bill did not t-duch the great shipping monopoly in any shape or form.' Mr. J. ROBERTSON (Otaki) also denounced the shipping monopoly, aJid declared that by its stubbornness it was preventing industrial peace' in this country. Henceforth he would advocate the nationalisation of the coastal shipping sorvico. The Government, in his opinion, was at fault in not bringing down 6ome proposal to curb the power of the shipping monopoly. . Mr. G. LAURKNSON (Lyttelton) said that he believed tho time had come when the State should run a ferry service between the two islands and should run a coal service from the West Coast. Tho first thing that should bo done was to restore. industrial peace, and the next to take such steps as would mako impossible .a recurrence of the strife now provailinE. The Speakor's Ruling. The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher said that he did not want to refer to the topic, that a number of members had introduced. Mr. Robertson: Naturally. Mr. Fisher said that he had as much knowledge of tho subject and sympathised as much with these men as tilt hon. gentleman who had interjected. Mr. Webb: Then why don't you adjopm the Houso and let us get to work to settlo, it ? Tho Minister said that he considered that no permanent industrial peace would be enjoyed so far as seamen were concerned until they had been given a position of some security. Mr. Veitch hero raised a point of order. The Minister said that ho was speaking about seamen on a Shipping and Seamen Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER ruled that the Minister's reference was out of order.

Mr.-Fisher said: "All right, sir,V and discontinued his speech.

Tho Bill was read a second time on tho voices.

PUBLIC REVENUES BILL.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

The House, at 4.40 p.m., went into Committee oil tho Public Revenues Bill.

Mr. H. G. Ell asked that the Minister in charge should explain the clauses in tho Bill which provided for tho transfer of responsibility from Ministers to Departmental officers.

The Hon. W. Fraser said that where tho Bill mado such a change it referred cither to matters of unimportant detail or to cases in which a Minister had to rely wholly upon information from his Departmental officors. Sir Josoph Ward said that tho Bill would rcliovo tho Minister of Finance from responsibility in connection with imprest payments to a vory large amount.

Tho Hon. W. Fraser said tho honourablo members who had spoken had evidently dona no with tho object of Hnd.-

ing fault with tho Bill, bv putting constructions upon it that v.'ero erroneous. It might be supposed from what they had said that tlie Minister was not gome; to retain any power over his officers, but the fact was that tho Minister would be relieved of 110 responsibility by the Bill. The-Minister could not divest himself of responsibility. Tho only object of tho Bill was to facilitate tho working of the Department by reiievintl tho Minister of duties which were quite mechanical, concerning which ho could havo 'no certain knowledge himself. The tact that tho Minister had to many documents did not mean that any additional check was put upon expenditure. No Minister could possibly poriiso all tho documents he received; 110 had to tako the advice of his officers as to whether things were in order or not.

Mr. H. G. Ell, while admitting that ia regard to a great many documents coming under his review tho Minister had to take tho assuranco of his Departmental officers that they were correct, argued that it was necessary for the Minister to look over tho documents ill order to get the necessary information to enable him to keep a check on tho expenditure of his Department. Treasury Bills. The Hon. W. Fraser, replying to a point raised in the second reading debate, said that the right to issue Treasury bills in London had always existed. Mr. llussell; It- has never been used..: Mr. Fraser: It has been used. Tho point is that where it' has been used tho Tjoasury bills hav© had to bo signed by the Minister here aiid sent- Homo by mail. All that the Bill did, he continued, was to empower tho High Commissioner to 6ign the bills after tho matter had been arranged between the" Finance Minister and himself, and lio had been authorised to borrow. At present tho High Commissioner could, sign debentures, but he could not sign Treasury bills. Mr. 6. W. Russell submitted that the loan operations of New Zealand for the next twelve months would have to bo very carefully handled. Ho con-* sidered that borrowing per medium of Treasury bills in Loiidon, coming on top of tho ordinary public bofrowing and the half million per annum to be raised for local bodies, would tend to depreciate tho credit of the Dominion in London.

The Hon. W. Fraser said, that he was glad to hear the hon. gentleman admit that tho Government might encounter some difficulty in raising tho money that would bo required. There was a big difference between issuing a debenture and issuing a Treasury bill. A Treasury bill was issued for only a few months. In tho early part of tho year revenue did not meet expenditure. The bulk of the revenue came in during the last few- months of the year. Treasury bills were issued in the early part of tho year in anticipation of revonue ajid none should remain outstanding at tho end of the financial year. Tho Minister of Finance (the Hon. Jas. Allen) might be relied upon not to float- Treasury bills in any way calculated to injure tlie credit of the Dominion. The Government was not taking power to increase the total amount of Treasury bills, but was merely taking power to issuo them where money could be obtained to the best advantage. Unauthorised Expenditure, Mr. G. Witty asked why tho maximum amount of unauthorised expenditure in the Railways Department had been raised from £100,000 to £150,000. The Hon. W. H. Berries said that the amount of £100,000 ljad been in operation since the Government Railways Act came into force. Now that the railways wore worth £3*2,000,000, an additional amount was needed to givo some elasticity to the railway revenue. Tho present maximum had existed when tho railways wore worth half their present value. , Sir Joseph Vr'ard 6ald tho increase in unauthorised, expenditure for tho Department was essential. Ho fully recognised this. Tho clause was retained on the voices. Tho Bill., was reported with amendments. LOCAL AUTHORITIES INDEMNITY. The Local Authorities Indemnity Bill was committed and reported without amendments. The Bill was read a third timo without debate, and passed. The House rose at XO.B p.m.