Port Diversion Scheme “Trial”

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31627, 13 March 1968, Page 1

Port Diversion Scheme “Trial”

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 12.

The Transport Commission, in its decision released today on an inquiry into the South Island meat diversion scheme which began in January, says the scheme should be regarded as “a trial exercise” for the current year and should be reviewed after it has been working for six months.

The review should take the form of another public inquiry, after which the commission would recommend whether the scheme should continue.

Announced last October by the New Zealand Meat Board and the Overseas Shipowners’ Committee, the scheme diverts all South Island export meat destined for London and Liverpool except that from Picton and Nelson through the ports of Timaru and Bluff.

After a deputation of protest to the Cabinet from Otago and Lyttelton Harbour Board representatives, an inquiry was held in November.

The harbour boards called on the commission to examine the benefits to be expected from the scheme, the consequential detrimental effects on their ports and whether the scheme was in the national interest. The commission’s chairman, Judge Archer, said that on the evidence available it appeared that the balance of direct benefits over direct costs was likely to be about $500,000. Net Losses Detrimental effects to the ports would be net losses of up to $66,000 at Lyttelton and $32,000 at Otago, with loss of watersiders’ earnings of up to $150,000 and $85,000 at the respective ports. There would be some loss of earnings to other workers at both ports and significant losses to, and “social” effects on, local authorities, business people and others. On balance, said Judge

Archer, the scheme was in the national interest The merits of the scheme should be capable of assessment after it had been running until June. Judge Archer said that to enable the review to be effective all interested parties should compile detailed information on the working of the scheme during the first six months.

In particular— The ship owners should report on the number of ship-days saved and the extent to which the savings made would be taken into account in the next subsequent freight negotiations.

The Meat Board should supply details as to the regularity of meat deliveries in London and Liverpool, and the financial benefits achieved as the result of more efficient planning and more regular deliveries.

Harbour boards should supply accurate information concerning the effects on their finances and labour requirements of the scheme.

The workers’ unions and the Waterfront Industry Commission should indicate the effects of the scheme upon waterfront labour. Other Cargo Referring to possible remedial measures, Judge Archer said consideration should be given, in conjunction with the future role of all New Zealand ports, to whether meat diversion from Lyttelton and Otago-should be offset by the direction of other residual cargo through these ports, as suggested in the Molyneux report. Payment of monetary compensation to the ports was not recommended, and compensation for the discharge of waterside workers who might be redundant was a matter for the New Zealand Waterfront Conference.