Concern At Cashin Quay Charges

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31029, 7 April 1966, Page 1

Concern At Cashin Quay Charges

The handling costs of cargo through Cashin quay were 16s 6d more a ton than a week ago, said the chairman of the transport committee of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce (Mr R. C. Wallace) at its monthly meeting last evening.

This increase of 16s 6d a ton, he said, had created a difference of 12s lOd a ton between goods being landed at Cashin quay and those landed at the inner harbour.

Mr Wallace said that whether a Christchurch importer or manufacturer got his goods through Cashin quay, or the inner harbour, was a matter of sheer luck.

It depended on whether the Lyttelton Harbour Board decision to put a ship into Cashin quay or not. This in turn depended on the availability of Cashin quay, and weather and the surge. Mr Wallace said that in cases of only a few tons, the difference in cost of cargo arriving at Cashin quay and go-

ing by lorry through the road tunnel, and that arriving at the inner harbour and being brought to Christchurch by rail, would not be great. But in cargoes involving 11000 tons in a single consignment. the difference to a con- | signee’s costs was vast. “GILBERTIAN” The vice-president of the chamber, Mr R. E. Smith, said the chamber was concerned about what seemed a Gilbertian situation on different cargoes because a ship happened to berth at a different wharf. “I can imagine importers lining up at the wharves and ‘rocking the boat.’ in order to get their ship into the inner harbour," said Mr Smith. Mr Wallace was reporting to the chamber about a meeting. at which he presided on Monday, between the combined transport and importers’ committee of the chamber and Mr D. G. Allison, representing the New Zealand and European Shipping Association: Mr A. C. Campbell, the general manager* of the New Zealand Stevedoring and Wharfingering Company: and ' the secretary of the same company (Mr W. W. Fraser). FIRST INSTANCE Mr Wallace said the new handling cost through Cashin quay had already begun because the Iberic, to which the new charges applied, was at Cashin quay and due to sail last night. It was the first ship to arrive at Cashin quay that was; loaded in the United King-1 dom after January 1. when freight rates between the United Kingdom and New Zealand were reduced by 13s 6d a ton. This was the first ship to berth at Cashin Quay where the ship’s responsibility ended at the hook. Previously the shipping companies used to pay the cost of handling into the shed. With the reduction in freight charges, the cost of handling becomes the responsibility of the consignee, from the moment the cargo leaves the ship’s hook. Charges Compared Mr Wallace said that the cost of landing charges from the ship’s side to the consignees’ warehouses in the commercial area of Christchurch city was £3 2s 6d a ton from Cashin quay, via the road tunnel by truck, compared with £2 9s 8d from the inner harbour, via the railways. This represented a difference of 12s lOd a ton. The charges were:— From Cashin quay.—Wharfage 6s a ton; handling £1 10s; cartage to Christchurch by road,’ £1 6s 6d. Total: £3 2s 6d a ton. From inner harbour.— Wharfage 6s a ton; handling ship-side, 9s 2d a ton: railway, £1 ss: cartage 9s 6d Total: £2 9s Bd. Difference: 12s lOd. Mr Wallace said that 30s wharf handling charge at Cashin quay made the handling costs at Lyttelton per ton the dearest in New Zealand. "This is purely wharf handling costs, after the goods have left the ship," said Mr Wallace. Comparative figures, he said, were Auckland 22s lOd a ton: Wellington, 28s 6d a 'ton. which included another

charge, and Port Chalmers 13s 8d a ton. “Then' is a great variation throughout New Zealand but we in Canterbury have the honour of being the dearest," said Mr Wallace. WILL IMPROVE Mr Wallace said that much of the high charges at Cashin quay was caused by there [being no constant flow of I cargo. There is no constant pressure. Because of this the wharfingering company could not provide that right degree of labour to get that flow situation. “This will improve when [the flow of cargo improves and this is evened out." said [Mr Wallace Mr Wallace said that it was pointed out to him at the meeting that the 30s a ton did not represent the cost of the wharf handling. The cost was greater. The chamber’s president (Mr B. J. Drake) said it appeared that any concessions in freight charges had been completely swallowed up and there was more to pay on the cargo under the new system of charges. The meeting decided to re fer the matter back to its combined transport-importers committee, to investigate further the structure of the charges, and to report back to the next meeting of the chamber.