Otago container figures disputed

Press, 11 June 1977, Page 4

Otago container figures disputed

I he lone dissenting voice on the Ports Authority, which this week approved Otago's second container crane, says that estimates of container throughput in the South Island, submitted by shipping lines, are far from conclusive — and he has the backing of Ministry of Transport advisors.

In his dissenting report released yesterday, Mr J. Mathison said that container I:nes had estimated a throughput of 69.600 containers by 1978, oniv 21.000 of which would go throng! Lyttelton. These figures formed the basis of Otago's bid for a second crane but, in the Words of ministry advisers, "the margin of error surrounding them must be considered large,” said Mr Mathison. If Otago got the second crane, Lyttelton did not expect to get even its estimated share of 21,000 containers. It would expect between 15.000 and 17.500 containers, leaving an annual deficit on loan repayments of between $319.000 and 8590.000. On these grounds, the ministry’s advisers recommended that Otago’s application be deferred for 12 months to test the container lines’ figures. Thev said that I a deferral would not be' costly to New Zealand, said Mr Mathison. I he container lines estimates were 17 per cent up; on those of 1975 and included a 10 per cent dis-, charge, load, and reposition-! ing factor (DLR factor) 1 which was not in earlier estimates. The DLR factor refers toil the discharging, loading, and < repositioning of containers 1 for trimming purposes or to; allow access to below-decksd •maces. 1 1

Strange as it may seem, all the increase in the estimates is for Port Chalmers —no increase is estimated for Lyttelton,” said Mr Mathison. He said that the lack of a DLR factor in the 1975 estimates was "an incredible omission.” "In the light of many years experience, shipping companies must have been aware of this factor. That being so. I refuse to accept that such competent operators overlooked the factor. The inclusion of the factor I in their latest estimates' strengthens heir argument for two cranes at Port Chalmers. That, no doubt. ! Was the intention.” Mr Mathison referred to contradictory evidence from Otago which claimed that ■ six large reefer ships would visit Port Chalmers. The reefer ships can each carry more than 1150 insu-j dated containers. As most of them arrive in the country empty, such ships require ■ more container movements (than normal. Six of them I might justify a second crane, at Otago. However, at the authority’s ■ (hearing in March, the Lyttel-) ton representatives had said that there would be only; .four such ships, and the; jcontainer-shipping lines had confirmed this, said Mr; Mathison. The member of Parliament, for Lyttelton (Miss C. E.J Dewe) -a'd that she was i

.amazed and angry at the Port Authority’s decision. , The authority’s decision I in December. 1974, had been • to approve one berth and lone container crane at Lyttel-] i ton and Port Chalmers. Further South Island 'container-terminal develop- i ment had been deferred un- . til later when the pattern of! overseas trade and experience; i with container handling at; both ports would provide al sounder basis for a decision.! "To think that the author-; ity has now had a complete; ; about-face anti awarded a! .further container crane to; Port Chalmers before Lyttel-! ton has even begun opera-) I lions amazes me and makes me feel very angry indeed.”! i said Miss Dewe. She said that the first con- i tamer ship was not due at I I Lyttelton until later this) month. It had not been pos-; sible for Lyttelton to begin! ihandling containers or to; establish any particular pat-! tern of trade. Miss Dewe also criticised the fact that the Ports Authority’s decision had not been made available to the harbour boards concerned. The decision had only been ) conveyed to them. To inform the boards without giving j them the reasons for the de-) icision was “somewhat churl ! iish.” Miss Dewe offered her support to the Lyttelton Harbour' Board in the appeal it in ! tended to make. ;