The Press TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1951 Shipping Freights

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26529, 18 September 1951, Page 6

The Press TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1951 Shipping Freights

The shipowners’ case supporting the ' 10 per cent, increase in freight rates cn cargo from New Zealand to United Kingdom and European ports j repeats in the main arguments that I are now familiar; but because they I are well known, the force of the ' arguments is not lessened. Costs, i the shipowners claim, have increased i nearly three-fold since the end of the 1939-45 war. This is attributed to ■ three main factors: the general increase in all costs of operation; delays in ports which increase both the direct operating and capital costs of a voyage; the increased cost of shipbuilding, which is reflected in higher depreciation costs each day and is aggravated by the slower turn-round. These arguments are difficult to answer. Everyone finds it easy to believe that direct costs, such as wages, fuel, providoring and cargo-handling, have increased substantially. No-one can deny that ships are making fewer round voyages a year on certain runs, or that non-earning periods in ports have extended. Depreciation allowances, out of which ships are renewed when they are worn out and obsolete, must be higher, because shipbuilding costs in Britain are now about four times what they were 20 years ago. Although British shipping since the war has appeared to be financially successful, evidence of deficiencies in the general merchant fleet is now raising serious concern in Britain. The Council of British Shipowners insists that ships are not being renewed as quickly as required and that too many old ships are being kept in service. Not much can be done directly in New Zealand about crew wages, fuel costs, or shipbuilding costs, except to bear a share of freight rates that the economics of shipping can legitimately demand; but by speeding the turn-round of shipping at the New Zealand end of voyages something can unquestionably be done to influence the incidence and application of these costs. In this connexion, a passage in the statement explaining the increased freight charges is of direct and immediate New Zealand interest. Commenting on the increased voyage times caused by long stays in New Zealand ports, the chairman of the Overseas Shipowners’ Allotment Committee (Mr D. A. Robertson) says that “while there has been a “ gratifying and appreciable im- “ provement in the rate of work by “each gang at practically all ports “ since the resumption of work . . , “ the fact is patent that the integral “ transport of the country is not yet “geared to keep up with the new “ tempo of work on the waterfront If this is true, it defines an alarming state of affairs. Even before the improvement there was evidence that ships were held irr ports for reasons over which the waterfront had no control, including delays in rail and road transport taking freight to and from ships, in handling in wharf sheds and goods sheds, and in movement of goods from ship to warehouse. It would be reprehensible if improvements on the waterfront—won at such heavy cost to the community—were lost through failure to improve handling in other ways. The Royal Commission orf the Waterfront Industry, whose work was interrupted by the waterside strike, is charged specifically to examine the whole system. It must take time to consider all aspects of working conditions on the waterfront. At the same time Mr Robertson’s comment suggests that the Government cannot too soon be given the benefit of the commission’s conclusions on the movement of goods to and from the wharves.