MARINE ACCIDENTS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 33, 9 February 1933, Page 13

MARINE ACCIDENTS

PETITION TO HOUSE

"NO RECOMMENDATION"'

QUESTION OE LIABILITY

The suggestion that shipping companies should be liable in the same way as other carriers of passengers where' an accident occurred as the result of negligence, was made by Labour members in the House of Eepresentatives yesterday afternoon, when the Petitions Committee reported on the petition of P.-J. O'Began, Wellington, who asked for the introduction of legislation to provide that shipping companies, in common with others responsible for the safety of life, should no longer be immune from the legal consequences of their, own negligence. The Committee had no recommendation to make. The need for some action to be taken to protect the travelling public from the shipping company, monopolies was stressed by Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christehurch East), ' who said that there was redress if the public who travelled oh a^ motor-bus, tramcar, or in a railway carriage were injured as the result of .an accident due to the negligence of the proprietor. Why should shipping companies be allowed to have.a provision attached to their.tickets exempting them from lia-' bility of any descripton, even though there might be carelessness on their part lor on the/part of their officers? Mr. ( Armstrong said that he entirely disagreed with the finding of the' Committee, } and he suggested that there should be a recommendation in favour of amending the law. j NO PROTECTION. Mr. W. E. Parry ("Labour, Auckland Central) said that the petition had been before the House for,a number of years. The conditions printed on the ticket meant, in effect; that the citizens were called on to-sign away their rights. He could not understand why the shipping'companies were able to get away scot free from their, rightful responsibility arid, why they .'should receive more consideration at the hands of a Government than any other section of the, community. The point had been under discussion for twenty years, and he wanted to congratulate the petitioner on his persistence in attempting to have the public, 'safeguarded; by. drawing the attention of the Government to-a. reform which was considered necessary. Irrespective of the .. nature of the accident, and whether or, not it 'was proved beyond doubt that culpability rested on the shoulders of the officers, the public had no protection in any way; It wa.s unfair to the c&mmunity at large that they should be compelled to purchase a ticket with .conditions printed on the back exempting the shipping companies from any responsibility. ' ■' i. Mr. P. Fraser v (Labour, Wellington Central), who was a member .of the Committee which considered' the petition, said he was' at a loss to understand how the Committee brought down its-., finding in view of the facts set but in the petition, the; rjport.of the Acting-Secretary of Marine, and the short evidence given by him. There was no logic in the finding, because he thought he could say every member of the Committee agreed that shipowners, in the matter of; liability, should be placed on the .same footing as common carriers—with- the exception of airway carriers—in the,case of accident. The position in regard to motor transit was very 'unsatisfactory prior to the passing of the .Motor .Vehicles Insur-i ahce (Third Party Bisks) Act, but after that all motor services were brought into conformity with the railways and other carriers in Tegard to .liability. He would challenge any member of tho Committee to say that the contention of the petitioner's was not sound. If he could judge the mind of the Committee, he would, say that the Committee thought it highly desirable that the shipping companies should shoulder the same responsibility, as that shoulderedJby. other carriers of .passengers. •* .:.K....v;.. : .;.;'..-..:' NEW EECOMMENDATION. ' Mr. Fraser said that up. to last session of Parliament the petition, was invariably, recommended for favourable consideration. The Chairman of the Committee was a member, of tjie Committee _whon. favourable recommendations were brought down. He understood that-the boa,' member had Vyoted both ways. . . .The Chairman of the Comihittee (Mr. F. ;Lye):; That ; is .notcbrrect.,' Discussing the difiieulties in 1 the way -f the' prayer of the petition, Mr. Fraser said that tho law as it stood at present, made it clear that even if the House:passed legislation, that legislation could only apply to ships registered :in this country or trading on the .coast. The next difficulty was that, in spite of the Statute of Westminster) the provision, which'required an aniendment to' the shipping laws to besent to Great Britain for the consent of the (authorities : there ;. to be obtained was still maintained. V" The matter had been brought up at the Imperial Conference, but. the paper prepared by the New Zealand Marine Department seemed to.have been treated in a manner similar, to that which the unfair shipping competition problem was treated at Ottawa. Apparently, there were stronger interests, but the time had come for New' Zealand' to say that it was its own master and that it was going to protect its own citizens. AN AMENDMENT." : The Bey. Clyde Carr (Labour, Timaru) said that very few* people read what was printed, on the back of the ticket, but it seemed that the shipping companies had taken evory conceivable precaution to protect themselves. Ho moved that the report be referred back to the Committee for further' consideration. ' Mr. W. _, Barnard (Labour, Napier) seconded the amendment, which was also supported by Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson). The amendment.was defeated by 37 votes to 25. •.'■'"■ Mr. Lye expressed. surprise at the attitude of the member for Timaru, who was a member of the Committee but did not attend the meotings. The matter raised was a big constitutional question, and would not be satisfactorily dealt with till it had been agreed to at a conference of the nations. Making a personal explanation, Mr. Carr said he was a member of the Education Committee which met at the same time as the other Committee, and he could not attend both meetings. The report was tabled.