PORT CHARGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1190, 27 July 1911, Page 2

PORT CHARGES.

1 AT AUCKLAND AND WELLINGTON. A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT. Recently there was issued by tho Auckland Harbour Hoard, said tho chairman of the Wellington Harbour Board (Mr. R. Fletcher) last evening, a comparative statement of harbour dues payablo by over.-c:: steamers. This schedule had been circulated among:-t merchants throughont. the Dominion. He had felt it his duty to have a statement prepared for Wellington.

"On its surface the Auckland statement," read the statement', "exhibits Wellington as the dearest port in the Dominion sa far as ships are concerned, and if allowed lo pass unchallenged might possibly do the port some harm. The rates in the statement are correctly quoted, but the fallacy lies in assuming that because a given rate is higher at one port, than at another, the latter is necessarily the cheaper; in other words, in ignoring the difference of local circumstances and conditions of working.

Different Methods. "Comparing Auckland with Wellington we find many important differences of method. In Wellington the boards acts as wharfinger, and, m addition la accepting responsibility, provides all the labour, manual and clerical, involved in receiving cargo from the ships' slings, stacking in the sheds, and delivering to vehicles or other ships. For these, services the board charges the consignee or shipper an inclusive wharfage: 2s. Bd. per •ton for imports, 3s. per ton for transhipments, and Is. id. per ton for exports. In Auckland the board supplies nono of these services, but simply provides the wharves and locks and unlocks the sheds, charging tolls varying from 2s. to Is. per ton. In Auckland tho ship?, in addition lo paying the customary dues for pilotage, port charges, harbourmaster's fees, and shipping wharfage, also have to bear the cost of taking the cargo from the slings and stacking same in the sheds, the consignee, in addition to paying wharfage, having to provide his own labour for loading his vehicles. ■

It is evident that any computation of the comparative cheapness of the two ports must take these facts into consideration.

A Material Fact. "Another very material fact is that, owing largely to the lack of a central managing authority similar to the Wellington Board, the claims paid by the ships in Auckland are seriously in excess of those paid in Wellington. I have, through the courtesy of one of the largest snipping coninanies doing business both here and in Auckland, specific figures on this point showing that the amount paid in Auckland compared to Wellington is as 7 is to 1. There seems no reason to doubt that other companies have similar experience. In ono instance a vessel discharged at Auckland 5300 tons. The claims paid on her cargo totalled .£370 6s. 3d., £2U being for goods lost after landing, £93 for goods pilla.ged, and ,£33 for goods damaged. In Wellington the same vessel discharged 1930 tons, and the total claims paid amounted to JE2 lGs. 8d-

Wellington the Cheaper Port,

'I find that, taking pilotage, port charges, harbourmaster's fees, and shipping wharfage. Wellington has collected during the past six years an average amount of 1.95 pence per ton on the net registered tonnage entering the port whilst Auckland for the samo dues for tho same periods collected 2.28 pence per ton.on the net registered tonnage of arrivals. This, shows that Wellington, so far as these duties are concerned, 'is tho cheaper port, and gives the better dispatch..

lurmng to pilotage, which is optional at both ports, the superiority of Wellington is even more marked. During tho six-year period tho Wellington Board received, .£2395: pilotage, wjiich, on the net register tonnage of arrivals, is only 0.036 pence per ton; Auckland, for the samo period, levied JESI27, or 0.208 .police per net register ton. ■ , .

V\ ith respect to port charges and harbourmaster's fees, the two ports are practically level, tho percentages being—Wellington: Port charges, 0.84 pence per ton; harbourmaster's fees, 0.47 pence per ton. Auckland: Port charges, 0.85 ponce per ton; harbourmaster's fees, o!iS pence per ton. "Harbour improvement rate and shedding charge for Wellington cargo landed in overtime are two charges made against ships in Wellington for which there are no equivalents in Auckland at present

In a Nutshell. "Summarising results it is found that omitting harbour improvement rate and overtime shedding charge, Wellington's average for the six-year period amounts to 1.95 d. per ton net register, as against Auckland's 2.25 d. per ton for same services, tho respective percentages for the last financial year being: Wellington, 1.96(1.; Auckland, 2.69(1. per net ton. Adding harbour improvement rate and shedding charges the figures show:! For six years. For year 1910. Wellington ... 2.78 d. 2.98 d. Auckland 2.28 d. 2.G9d

This shows percentages in favour of Auckland of 0.50 d. for the six-year period and of o.2i)d. for the year 1910. But when tho extra cost to the ship in Auckland for work dono in Wellington by tho board and charged in the wharfage to consignees is borno in mind the rashness of asserting Auckland to be the cheaper port for tho ship is evident.

"In Wellington, tho ship, or at any rate one vory large shipping company, pays the following rates for stevedoring:—Measurement cargo and ordinary weight cargo, lOd. per ton; Liverpool cargoes, Is. per ton; rails, Is. 2d. per ton. • "In Auckland tho same company pavsMeasurement cargo, Is. 3d. per ton; ordinary weight cargo, Is. Cd. per ten; rails, girders, and other awkward cargo, Is. 6d. per ton. i

A Comparative Analysis. "A careful analysis of the actual accounts paid by this company at Wellington and Auckland for the past ten months shows that, after debiting Wellington with the overtime and cranage paid to tho Harbour Board, the cost of the extra work done by the ship at Auckland amounts to 5 10-liid. per ton of cargo lauded. Tho position as to claims paid by tho same company for tho same period is as follows:— Auckland.—Average claim paid per too of cargo landed, 7.05 d. Wellington.—Average claim paid per ton of cargo landed, 1.03 d.

WELLINGTON'S POSITION VINDICATED, SOME DISCUSSION. Tho chairman hoped members would agree that tho foregoing was a very complete statement. The Auckland statement had referred to particular charges, but tho report before the board referred to port charges in general, and vindicated the petition that Wellington ftood as tho pemier port in New Zealand. Mr. M. Cohen said this was a general statement, but it appeared to him that there were some important imports upon which the port charges were dearer in Wellington than in Auckland. 'Die in'effected deserved consideration. Mr." C. W. Jones: "What industry is flint:"

Mr. Cohen: "I am not prepared to state at I he moment. 1 am rather taken by surprUe." Mr. Jones raid that as this was a long find elaborate report, bristling with remarkable statements—in some of which ho did not concur—ho thought it should 1» referred to the Wharves and Accounts Committee. Vrom the report, it appeared that one company had liccn very unfortunate. The Chairman: "It was tho Shaw, Snvill. and Albion Company." Mr. Jones said the experience of his own company was that the difference between Auckland and Wellington, in the matter of claims, amounted to one penny per ton in favour of Wellington. Ho did not think this report .should go forth to the public as the deliverance of tho Harbour Board. The chairman said the information upon which tho report was based was absolutely accurate. The information had been volunteered. Unfortunately, it was usually very difficult to obtain infonnn-1 tion as to the. experience of skippers in!

tho northern port, but tho information contained in the report was backed up by documentary evidence. Pillaging at Auckland, Mr. H. 0. Tcwsley: "This report, Sir, is marked "Confidential." The chairman explained that the report had been sent to him as confidential, but he thought it should now go forth to the public. He had had many requests to clear the matter up. In a recent interview, published in The Dominion, Mr. Fletcher added, ho had meitioned a case iu which n fhip paid out JC'M in claims at Auckland. Of this sum £U\ was paid in respect of claims for goods that had been lauded from the ship and never seen afterwards. It was fair lo assume that companies in general had to meet claims in Auckland in the same proportion as in the cases cited. Mr. Jones's company might have been very forlunate, but the conditions under which the work was carried on in Auckland lent themselves to largo claims being made against a company. In Wellington the board made itself responsible for the goods, and tho risk of claims against the employers was minimised. Mr. Harkness. congratulated tho chairman and secretary on the document they had presented to' the board. It would not, however, bo wise to discuss tho matter that night, lie moved that tho discussion upon the report should be postponed for a month as he had suggested.

A Word for Settlers. Mr. Cobbe said this appeared to be a very satisfactory report, but possibly the board in Wellington was doing too much for shippers. Jlo hoped that some attention would 1)6 given to tho charges levied on heavy imports that were required in quantity up country. Tho chairman stated that when slag and other manures were landed at Auckland and transferred to railway trucks the chargo lovied was Is. Gd. per ton. For tho same seryico the Wellington Board charged Is. id. Mr. Trevor said there was such a discrepancy between the statement before the Board and a statement made by a representative uf the New Zealand Shipping Company in the local press that it was a little difficult to understand tho difference. It might bo illuminating if the board asked these shippers to lay their case before it. \ The chairman remarked that a man who appealed to a table of figures could make it read in any way. I\ T o one knew better than the representatives of tho shipping company mentioned how Wellington compared with Auckland. These gentlemen knew* in their hearts that taking consignee, ship, and port into account, Wellington was the cheaper port.

Mr. Cobbe said ho did not want the chairman to think that ho doubted the figures presented, but. he would be obliged if the chairman would read some letter,! tho speaker had handed him in reference to import charges in Auckland. Tho chairman said the letters did not bear on tho question under discussion. He would deal with the Auckland letters at an early date.

The adjournment of tho matter was carried.