OUR PORT CHARGES.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 256, 26 October 1923, Page 8

OUR PORT CHARGES.

AN AUSTRALIAN COMPLAINT. IS TEE PRODUCER PENALISED? LIGHT DUES A ITEM. The port and light charges of Australia and New Zealand are classed by the Australian "Pastoral Review" as "extortion." "In our June issue." says an article in the current number of the "Review," "we published particulars showing the cost to the owners for a vessel of 4737 tons register obtaining a cargo on one trip to Australia. This article has been reprinted throughout much of the world, and has opened the eyes, not only of our producers, but of the hosts of shippers who suffer from the extortion. Xo reductions so far have been made. It has been a popular cry to abuse the Britisli shipowner for his "greed" b} r the high rate of freights charged, but now it has come home to most people ihat the root of the evil is the extortion of our port authorities, and tiie State Governments, who mostly add to their revenues by getting a "share of the profits of the undertakings. We now show that Australia is not alone a sinner in this respect; New Zealand is as bad." Increase in Light Dues. The "Keview" then Bets forth a table of port charges (allowing for a three-days' stay at each port) for a ship of 4737 tons visiting seven Xew Zealand ports—Auckland, G'sborne, Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton, Dunedin and the Bluff. The average charge per port in 1914 is given at £157, and in 1922 at £198. In 1914 Auckland pilotage, port charges and berthage amounted to £150 3/11 (Government light dues £S0 12/4 additional), and in 1922 these charges amounted to £197 11/7 (lisrbt dues increased to £317 8/7), but the increase of "port charges" was entirely due to pilotage, the fees being risen "from £80 12/4 to £120 IS/G, according to the table herein reviewed. It will be seen, therefore that, despite the war, the port and berthage charges made by the Auckland Harbour Board remained unaltered. However, the "Pastoral Review" puts the total New Zealand increases for charges on shipping down at 27 per cent, and it is particularly "hostile to the increase of lisiit dues (a Government matter) from 4d to fid per ton at the first port of call in the Dominion, and the doubling of the charges of id per ton at the remaining ports.

''This matter, both in Australia ant? New Zealand, has to be tackled firmly by the producers, and pressure must be brought to bear on the Governments, otherwise they will continue to be handicapped by high freights, concludes the "Review." Shipping companies are not making undue profits. The crux of the trouble is in our own country." Nothing to Growl About. Inquiries made among the commercial communitj' to-day did not discover any local criticism of our port charges, and the Australian charge of extortion was smiled at. One business man put it this way: "Roughly, a' ship of the tonnage referred to, would carry 7000 tons of cargo in and out. The total cost, port charges, light dues and all, according to the table quoted, would amount to about £1000. Is that a terrible charge for the facilities supplied for safety and for handling 14,000 tons of cargo? It would not amount to more than about 1/4 per ton, and I don't see how that is going to place any great handicap on the back of either the exporting producer or the importing producer. We are not growling about the Auckland port charges, anj° hpw."

The managing director of a big concern which deals with the primary producer and ie greatly interested in the export trade declared for caution in dealing with figures and making comparisons. Regarding the Government light dues, he had nothing to say excepting that the New Zealand coast had to be well lighted for the safety of ships, and that naturally ships had to pay for the maintenance of these lights Whether the cost was excessive under the present administration was a matter which he had not gone into. As regards Auckland's port charges, they were in advance of those made at Wellington, but this was probably compensated for in the matter of lesser pilotage here— Auckland not being a "compulsory pilotage" port. And if the charges here were somewhat higher than those of the southern ports, was the shipowner not compensated for that by the Bplendid facilities for the rapid handling of cargo afforded by the port authorities here? There was no doubt, he said, that our facilities in this reEpect were greatly superior to those provided by other New Zealand ports, and ships consequently made a great saving of valuable time (which meant a great saving of money) owing to this happy position.

"Of course we have to pay for these splendid -wharves," he added, "but with the sinking fund provided, the loans •with -which they were built will have been repaid, principal and interest, in thirty or so years—unlike. the loans of some local bodies which build costly roads out of loans and still owe the money for them in thirty years, after having paid interest all that. time. -.At the end of the repayment period Auckland's wharves will y have Veen paid for and the Harbour Board will be in a very strong financial position, and will then be able to reduce its charges when other ports arc just beginning to follow Auckland's example. And these concrete wharves will be good for a hundred years —perhaps hundreds. The first concrete piles put down twenty years ago are as good to-day as then. It may be asked again, in the words of a famous statesman, why~Ve should be paying for posterity, and what has posterity done for us? Well, there you are. "Posterity might have some more wharves to pay for," suggested the interviewer. "Probably," replied the business man, with a laugh.