Big Rise In Wharf Charges To Meet Losses In 1966

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31662, 24 April 1968, Page 32

Big Rise In Wharf Charges To Meet Losses In 1966

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, April 23.

Wharf-handling charges would soar in the Port of Auckland this year, the Auckland Harbour Board was informed today. After hearing a report from its general manager (Mr R. T. Lorimer) the board adopted his proposals for action.

The cost of loading cargo at Auckland will be increased 73 per cent—by 89c to $2.25 a ton—from Monday. Cargo discharge costs have risen 33c a ton to $2.69—14 per cent—since March 18.

Handling charges on discharged cargo were apportioned between consignee and ship, in accordance with a formula laid down by the Transport Commission. Loading charges were not subject to this formula and in most cases the full cost was paid by the shipper. STATEMENT OF COSTS

The new rates are a result of the first statement of costs of wharf-handling operations at each port prepared and published by the Waterfront Industry Commission at the direction of the Transport Commission.

Mr Lorimer reported that the statement of 1966 costs showed that the assessment of costs made by the Waterfront Commission and used as the basis for wharf handling charges introduced that year was too low. Wharf handling work was carried out at a loss to the companies concerned. “It is intended that the companies recover the amount of their losses for 1966 through the higher charges to be made in 1968,” he said.

After explaining why the commission underestimated costs in 1966, Mr Lorimer said the major portion of the new costs were an increase of 29c a ton in wharf labour costs, and an increase of .4c a ton in the sum needed to meet the charges for stevedoring companies’ overheads. The overhead charge now amounted to 10 per cent of the total cost of wharf handling for general cargo landed. HIGHER LEVY

The 29c labour charge increase included an increase of 18c a ton in the Waterfront Commission levy collected to cover its administration, holiday pay, guaranteed minima, and sundry wage payments to all watersiders throughout New Zealand. The commission charged its levy on the numbei of paid hours worked by watersiders at all ports. Last November, it sought an increase from 25c to 50c an hour in its levy because the fall-off in trade at some ports made its income insufficient to meet the guaranteed minimal payments. “The amount of the levy collected in Auckland in 1966 was $1,032,000 or 30 per cent of the national total,” he said. “In that year the sum spent to meet guaranteed minima and holiday payments at Auckland was $331,316. “Even if Auckland’s share of the cost of administering the commission was in the vicinity of $200,000 a year,

Auckland made a very substantial contribution, almost s.sm in 1966, toward the cost of operations at ports where the volume of trade is insufficient to meet the cost of guaranteed minima payments to waterside workers.” While the levy is disbursed on a national basis, its inclusion as an' item of cost in the wharf-handling charges created an anomaly—ports with the greatest volume of work subsidised ports with an insufficient amount. RUNNING COSTS On the .4c increase, Mr Lorimer said: "The commission arrives at the amount of these charges by a method that returns to all stevedoring companies at the port the average of the amount that the companies claim as being necessary, for them to operate.

“No account is taken of whether a particular company is overstaffed or whether it is efficient in its work.”

Other points made by Mr Lorimer:

In spite of the increase in charges for general cargo landed, no attempt had been made to establish rates that reflect the benefit available to shipping companies when cargo units, cars and large packages were handled. The increased handling charge for wool (up 9c) still included the cost of receiving and stacking wool in the wharf transit sheds. There was nothing to prevent the receiving of wool directly under the ship’s hook, as was done, for example at Napier. There the wharf handling charge was 10c a bale, compared with 65c in Auckland. The new rates continued to impose a cost (1c a ton) for railway shunting on all goods removed from or delivered to the wharfs by road transport. All the research into wharf handling charges concerned only shipping services between Europe. Britain and New Zealand and all the evidence at the Transport Commission’s hearing concerned the application of charges for the New ZealandEuropean Shipping Association. “Despite this, the Government nominees have authorised almost all of the shipping lines serving New Zealand from all parts of the world to make the same

charges for wharf handling as the N.Z.E.S.A. member companies,” he said.

RECOMMENDATIONS Mr Lorimer recommended that: The board must secure the necessary amendments to the Harbours Act proposed by the Marine Department to license stevedores and wharfingers.

A strong shippers’ organisation representing importers and exporters be formed in Auckland fo deal directly with the companies licensed by the board. Submissions be made to the Government to require the Waterfront Commission to adjust the level of the national administration fund at Auckland in order to spread the burden more evenly throughout New Zealand. Legal advice be sought to test the propriety under the Trade Practices Act whereby companies outside the N.Z.E.S.A. were adopting similar charges for wharf handling. Wool buyers be advised of the reasons for the “exorbitant” charges being made for handling woo) in the port with a view to having the shipping companies absorb 50 per cent of these charges. An independent investigation be started into the methods adopted by the Waterfront Commission for timekeeping, and that if necessary this work be taken over by local harbour boards.

The six points were adopted for action by the board.