CHAP. VII] MERCHANT SHIPPING 1211 
in greater simplification of shipping matters. On the con- 
brary, it would seem that further confusion would be inevi- 
table if the powers of these Dominions are extended. What 
does seem desirable is that some agreement should be come 
to between the Commonwealth and New Zealand with 
regard to conditions of shipping, and if possible some agree- 
ment with the United Kingdom. 
At present the existing legislative powers are tending to 
confusion and difficulty, and to add needlessly and without 
corresponding advantage to the problems of British shipping. 
In addition to the Act No. 36 of 1909 to amend the existing 
legislation (consolidated in 1908), which only received the 
royal assent in 1911, the New Zealand Parliament passed 
m 1910 a Shipping and Seamen Amendment Bill, which 
the Governor reserved, and which makes important modifi- 
cations in the existing law. By Clause 2 it is provided that 
the rate of wages prevailing in New Zealand shall be paid to 
all seamen on vessels plying or trading from New Zealand 
bo the Commonwealth of Australia and from New Zealand 
to the Cook Islands. By s. 3 it is provided that an extra 
tax of 25 per cent. of the amount of passage money or freight 
shall be levied on passenger tickets, bills of lading, or shipping 
documents issued in respect of vessels trading from New 
Zealand to the Commonwealth or the Cook Islands, if the 
vessels carry any Asiatics as part of the crew. These taxes 
will not, however, apply if these vessels comply with the 
provisions of s. 2 of the Act, that is to say, if all the crew, 
eluding Asiatics, are paid the New Zealand rate of wages. 
The Bill was introduced and passed very quickly through 
the Parliament without much discussion, in order to strengthen 
the hands of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference 
in 1911 in asking for extended powers for the Dominion in 
matters of merchant shipping.1 
It was admitted by the Government in the course of the 
discussion that the legislation must be reserved for the royal 
assent, but it was contended that the legislation was similar 
in principle to that of the legislation of the Commonwealth, 
* Parl, Deb, cli, 839, 840; cliii, 695, 835, 836, 871.