Otago aims to block Lyttelton’s crane

Press, 15 December 1977, Page 10

Otago aims to block Lyttelton’s crane

PA Dunedin The Otago Harbour Board will lodge a formal objection with the Ports Authority when the Lyttelton Harbour Board seeks a second container crane. Recently the Lyttelton board indicated that it would apply for a second crane, after Otago’s bid for a second crane was approved by the Minister of Transport (Mr Lachlan). Otago’s decision to object came after a strong protest by the board’s retiring chairman, Mr C. G. Skeggs, over the apparent reasoning behind Lyttelton’s intention to seek another crane. Mr Skeggs said he thought the Otago board owed it to the public to publicise the “true and factual situation.” He said he had been particularly perturbed by the Lyttelton development, and especially by the parochial ramifications of the development of container port facilities for the South Island. Faced with the fact that Port Chalmers would have a through-put of 48,000 containers a year, the Lyttelton board had claimed there was no justification for a second crane at Port Chalmers, Mr Skeggs said. Yet, with a projected throughput of only 19,000 containers a year, the

Lyttelton board now wanted a second crane for its own terminal.

Mr Skeggs said the Lyttelton board was “obviously totally ignorant” on containers in the South Island, when it sought a second crane apparently on the basis that Christchurch was the largest South Island centre of population. But what mattered was the number of stock units in an area, not the number of people, and it was a fact that 80 per cent of primary exports from the South Island emanated from south of Christchurch. Lyttelton’s present container movements were “nothing like” 19,000 annually; he suggested that Lyttelton would lose between $40,000 and $50,000 a month on its present container' throughput in relation to its box rate. A Lyttelton board member had said that a second crane was needed in case the first crane broke down, Mr Skeggs said. This suggested that Lyttelton was prepared to spend between S4M and SSM of public money for an “irresponsible” reason. The spending of money on a second crane that was not needed placed greater pressure on the economic viability of farmers who provided the exports, he said.

“If the Ports Authority accepts this, it will be a mockery of the authority and the Government,” Mr Skeggs said. “We must be very vocal in our strong objections to Lyttelton’s applying for a second crane.” A decision on Otago's application for a second container crane should not have taken 12 months, Mr Skeggs said in his annual report. The delay had cost the board about $300,000, but even more important, he said, the crane was unlikely to be available to speed the turn-around of big refrigerated ships in the 1978-79 meat season.