WELLINGTON’S TRADE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 218, 9 June 1921, Page 6

WELLINGTON’S TRADE

MISLEADING GOVERNMENT STATISTICS LOCAL MEMBERS PROTEST HOW THE FORT SUFFERS The fact that official statistics misrepresent the trade of the port of Wellington was placed before the Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon. W. Dbwnie Stewart) yesterday by local members of Parliament and representatives of the Central Progress League. Au official return of exports from the ports of tho Dominion last year credits Wellington with exports to tho value of .£0,593,149, whereas tho actual value of the exports from the port exceeded .£16,700,000. The smaller total has been quoted in comparative tables to the disadvantage of Wellington, and the deputation asked for an improved method of presenting the statistics.

Mr. R. A. Wright, M.P;, Mayor of I Wellington, said that tho official figures certainly were unfair to the port of WeiI lington. 'Die position was that until 1911 each port had been credited with the goods it actually exported; but since 1914 each port had been allotted a district for statistical purposes, and was credited with tho exports of that district whether the goods were actually shipped from the port or not. 'Wellington had been allotted a comparatively small district, with about a quarter tho area of Auckland’s district, and it received no credit in the official returns for the enormous quantity of goods received for shipment from outside the allotted district. This was a most anomalous state of affairs. Wellington was credited with exports from an area of about 4300 square miles, while Wanganui, for example, had a district of 507~ Square miles, and Auckland was credited with exports from 18,952 square miles. Mr. C. M. Luke, president of the Central Progress League, said that the official statistics had been quoted against Wellington in comparisons with other ports. The figures were liable to be used in connection with business, immigration and public expenditure, and he »M strongly of opinion that every po> ; should be given credit for its actual Dr. A. K. Newman, M.P., said that Wellington was the chief port of New Zealand beyond any question, and he was at a loss to understand why the official records were compiled in such a fashion-. Wellington was Jhandling a great deal of trade that was credited to other ports in the official returns. Any uninformed person looking at the returns would assume that Wellington was falling behind other ports, when as a matter of fact it was forging ahead Hie statistics presented a most incorrect picture of -Wellington trade, and they ought to be placed in proper form as | quickly as possible. , Mr. W. H. Field, M.P., said he had no doubt’ there was some explanation to be offered of tho figures that were being discussed, but if the Department felt it necessary to publish such figures, it ought to add a' note explaining that they were quite inaccurate, and referring readers to the true figures. Business people in many parts of the world were likely to be guided by the official figures, and -Wellington would suffer in their estimation. Mr. G. Mitchell, M.P., offered tho opinion that the return hnd been intended to show tho production of the district and not the exports of the port. It had been made to serve two purposes, and it served neither purpose well, the figures really convoyed no information at all, because very few poop o “meed knew what districts hnd been allotted to the various ports. It was natural enough that they should be accepted by some people, however, and he was not surprised to find in an Auckland prospectus a. statement that the port of Auckland held premier position, since its exports were worth over .£9,000,000, against something over .£6,000,000 for Wellington. He had seen published calculations intended to show that a certain port was cheaper than Wellington. These calculations were based on the Government’s inaccurate figures, and the comparison would have been strongly in favour of Wellington if the full volume of tho exports of the port had been reckoned. Then he had seen in an American newspaper a statement that Auckland was the leading port of the Dominion, and this statement again was backed by the official statistics. Mr. Mitchell handed the Minister a report prepared for thP Progress League on the subject. The iflport showed that the districts allotted to various ports by the Departmental officers for statistical purposes had the following areas in square miles:—Auckland 18.952; Wellington, 4356; Lyttelton. 11,355; Dunedin. 8385; Wanganui, 5072; Napier, 7765; Invercargill, 14,888; Timaru, 5102.

Minister Promises Some Redress.

The Minister, in reply, said that the anomaly mentioned by the deputation Was very simply explained. The custom prior to 1914 had been to credit each port with the goods for which bills of lading were taken out in that port. A change was ’m,ade in 1914 in consequence of representations received from the smaller ports. The oomplaint of these ports was that they got no credit for their exports, and that everything wits centred in the large ports. It was agreed, after much controversy, that the statistics should be presented in such a way its to show, or attempt to show, the districts in which thq good? were produced. The Minister agreed that the official table of exports, as it appeared in the Year Bool:, was unsatisfactory, since its heading suggested that it showed tho actual exports of the ports mentioned. The confusion that had arisen really was due to an attempt to combine production statistics and trade statistics. He would point our, however, that tho now system had been approved by the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, and this body believed still that it was right to give each district credit for .vbat it produced. He agreed that the heading ,of the official return should be altered to show that it represented exports from districts and not from ports. The return did not show the volume of trade across the wharves of any particular port. The districts covered by the figures were artificial districts, created for statistical purposes, and the real meaning of the figures could be made clear by an explanatory note. The other point was whether it was possible to include hi tho official statistics a return showing the actual exports of each port. One way of getting this information would be to require the exporter to give the details, but there were objections Io imposing any additional burdens on tho exporters. The alternative was to ask the hnrlxiur boards to supply information as to the volume of goods handled, and then let the Customs Department make an estimate of the value of the exports. He would like to consult his officers before agreeing to this proposal. Estimates of tho value of exports obviously would bo liable to error. Ihe weight of wool exported, for example, would not be an indication of quality, and therefore of value. Tho Government would not be able to vouch for Hie accuracy of such statistics. Tho Minister proceeded to say that the ideal system would give the actual exports for each port, in volume and valuo also Hie production of each district,’ and tho coastwise trade nnd internal trade generally. But a system of this kind wou d involve considerable expense and could not -be undertaken at the present lime. Ho could agree to alter the heading on the existing return, so as to ■make its meaning clear. He gathered that the