THE SHIPPING LAWS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2815, 26 February 1908, Page 27

THE SHIPPING LAWS.

QTJESTION OF .CONTROL IN SOUTHERN WATERS MR W. BELCHER'S VIEWS. A Melbourne cablegram published on Thursday stated that Mr Deakin was at a loss to understand the views of the British Attorney-general (Sir W. Robson, K.C.), as expressed recently, on Australian shipping legislation. Mr W. Belcher, secretary of the Seamen's Union, who attended the Maritime Conference in England last year with other representatives from Australasia and elsewhere, was waited upon on thp 21st bj an Otago Daily Times reporter, and expressed his willingness to state j the position of the matter as far as lay in hio power. "Like Mr Deakin," said Mr Belcher, "I, too. have been at a loss to understand the message. There have been of late two or three cryptic cablegrams appearing in the Australian and New Zealand newspapers the purport of which no one appears to understand. The hostility and opposition which are now commencing to appear against the Australian Navigation Bill do not apparently emanate from either the British, shipowner or the Board of Trade officials, and seeing that those people are quiescent in connection with the matter it is somewhat difficult to understand in whose interests Sir William Robeon and others are speaking. The question of local autonomy — that is, the control of local shipping, both by Australia and New Zealand, was a matter that was most exhaustively discussed at the ! conference in London As a matter of fact I this question perhaps occupied more time than any other subject that was discussed at the conference. The Hon. William Hushes and Sir William Lyne, on behalf of Australia, along with the New Zealand delegates, strongly insisted that the vessels engaged in the coastal and intercolonial trade of Australasia should not be unduly interfered with by vessels registered outside of Australasia or whoee crews were signed on at a lower rate of wages than those ruling in, Australasia. The detrimental influences to colonial shipowners in this respect were so forcibly and pointedly put that the Imperial authorities had to admit the justice of the contentions, and in finally dealing with this subject the equity of the arguments of the Australasian representatives was so strong that the conference unanimously passed the following resolution: — 'That the vessels to which the conditions imposed by the law of Australia or New Zealand are ] applicable should be (a) vessels registered in the colony while trading therein, and i (b) vessels wherever registered while j trading on the coast of the colony. That for the purpose of this reeolution a vessel 6hall be deemed to trade if she takes on j board cargo or passengers at any port in the colony to be carried to and landed f or delivered at any port in the colony.' j This, to my mind, lays down the principle that the Imperial authorities consented without reservation to the colonial Governments having full and absolute contiol o-ver all ships which traded in their waters. " The Australasian Navigation Bill as then drafted was subjected to very close scrutiny, and there has not, to my knowledge, been any alteration made in the provisions of that bill since the conference eat. Although not expressed in so many words, it was tacitly agreed at the conference that there wa6 really nothing in the Australian bill to which the Imperial authorities could take exception, and it is extremely difficult to understand what issues are now being raised by apparently outside persons in opposition to the conclusions arrived at at the conference. One does not altogether care to impute motives, but knowing the strenuous opposition and hostility that were exhibited by shipowners and tho Board of Trade officials towards the New Zealand act of 1903, one cannot help thinking that a similar attitude ie intended towards the Federal Navigation Bill. It may be mentioned that the Shipping and Seamen's Act which was passed by the New Zealand Government in November, 1903, did not receive the royal assent until April. 1905. In the interim the bill was subjected to ft very severe buffeting by every person connected with shipping in the United Kingdom. The Shipowners' Federation and the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee used their utmost endeavours to have that bill blocked. In this they were aided by the Board of Trade officials, who also raised every conceivable legal objection to the measure becoming law. This can be substantiated by a reference to the Parliamentary Blue Book dated May, 1905. which was presented to both Houses of Parliament in Great Britain. " Perhaps it may be well not to attach too much importance to the remarks made by Sir William Robeon at the dinner given by the Chamber of Shipping in London. He may- possibly have dined well, and seeing tho company lie was in was desirous of propitiating the shipowners and their Interests. His utterances certainly are not official, but if he has beesn reported aright he certainly, conveye a teiled threat that

Australia and New Zealand may have cause to tegrot their insistence on local autonomy in local waters. We all realise, I think, that the duty of defending the shores of Australia devolves \ipon the Imperial navy, but that fact to my mind does not carry with it any right on the part of the British shipowners to come along and perhaps destroy the huge > shipping interests which have boon built up both in AustraJia and New Zealand.

" Looked at from that point of view there is no denying the fact that the Australian shipowners and their interests have more to fear from the aggressions of the cheap British-owned tramp than from interference by vessels of other nationalities. As a rule the wages paid on a British tramp steamer are very little more than those paid to the crews of foreign ships, and the British* Board of Trade not yet having fixed a manning scale for the 6hips under its control, these tramps can float around, manned in Mch a condition that would give the owners a most decided advantage over the Australian shipowner. It is beyond question that the large liners of all nationalities trading to Australia have inflicted great loss on the Australian shipowners. This is shown most conclusively in a pamphlet Issued some time ago by the Age newspaper, which showed in detail the amount of passage money only earned by the P. and O. Company, North German Lloyd, and the M^ssageries Maritimes Co., which amounted to the huge sum of £66,477 in one year. It is urged by the British authorities that these ships should still continue to cut into the Au'rtralian owners interests, and iji addition to that that the tramp should have unlimited rights to trade where she pleases without restrictions. If that is agreed to it will simply mean that the Australian shipowner will eventually have to give up business altogether. But I apprehend that the sentiment so strongly enforced in Australasia as to fair conditions and decont wages along with the remunerative business for the shipowner, will not be lightly given up to the British shipowner who has the whole world as an outlet for his energies and capital. One of the provisions of the Australian Navigation Bill is that all vessels trading on the coasts in a strictly legal sense of the term must be granted a license to <lo so, and if that principle is made applicable to the vessels of all nationalities it puts them all on an equal footing, and preserves the stability of the large colonial shipping^ interests. "It has long beerf my opinion that the necessity for having the Imperial assent to" our bhipping laws should be abolished altogether, except, perhaps whore the matter of treaties is concerned, and that fact of itself opens up the question as to whether the colonies should not have some voice in the making of treaties with foreign nations, which would probably affect _ the dependencies of the Empire very considerably indeed. If fhis continual carping by people in Britain is going to be indulged in with regards the framing of our local shipping laws it is high time that some of our statesmen moved in the direction of having the Constitution Act amended so as to admit of us doing what we think is necessary for the preservation and the maintenance of our mercantile marine..." ~