“A VITAL SERVICE”

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 189, 12 May 1928, Page 10

“A VITAL SERVICE”

♦ SHIPPING FREIGHTS AND CHARGES

MAIN AND MINOR PORTS MR. G. MITCHELL REPLIES TO CRITICS Discussing further the question of shipping freights and charges, Mr. G. Mitchell writes as follows: — “As the Wellington Harbour Board has been directly and indirectly associated with my article on shipping and the flat freight rate, by those who have criticised, I wish to make it quite clear that the article was written by me as a citizen —not as a member of the Wellington Harbour Board. It has not been discussed by the board in any way whatever. “The fact that we are 13,000 miles away from our markets makes transport a most vital service which, if we are to compete successfully with competitors more favourably placed, must be cheap, quick, efficient and regular. At the same time, so soon as one who has given considerable study to the matter aiid has courage to criticise the existing system (which every unbiased investigator will condemn as most costly and irregular, which violates every recognised principle of sound business, which taxes the many to benefit a few, which has encouraged a wasteful and extravagant

expenditure of borrowed money on harbour development, until the Government, recognising the ultimate burden which local but misguided patriotism was placing ou the people concerned, set up a Loans Board to protect them), dares to try and improve these conditions, a personal attack is made on him. His figures are twisted and misconstrued, and mean and unworthy motives, which one expects from the soap box, are ascribed to him, while the big main issue is forgotten or never mentioned. I ask critics to remember that there are two main questions which they have entirely evaded: — . „ “I. Is the present system of a flat freight rate and 'call at your farm’ policy fair and equitable and iu the best interests of the Dominion? “2. If not, in what way should it be altered ? “There are two sides to a question. Let is debate them vigorously if necessary, but fairly. *‘l have answered all Mr. Rignell s points and criticisms which really matter. His charges of “camouflaging figures, juggling, deceiving, ignorance, insidious propaganda, etc.,’ are unworthy of the national interests under discussion, and are therefore ignored. _ If, however, he has any points or criticisms to make in a manner fitting to his position, I will be glad to discuss them. “Mr. Bignell says that Wanganui has an increase iu tonnage this year, but

an aicreube *** wuuunv wia Wellington a loss. He lias taken figures for the middle of one season to the middle of the next, which is a dangerous practice. I congratulate Mr. Bignell on his board making up its loss of last year, but I trust it will not be disappointed to know that Wellington already shows a substantial increase so far this year, the figures for which will be available to him shortly. “Mr. Bignell directs me to the following figures with pride as ‘showing what has been done at Wanganui’:— 1911. 1927.

Depth of water on bar 12ft. 6in. 23ft. to 24ft. Loan indebtedness ....... £lOO,OOO £600.000 Goods handled 91,803 tons 189,106 tons Note: My figures —Ratio of indebtedness per ton of goods handled .... £1 Is, 9d. £3 3s. sd. “According to the Wanganui harbourmaster’s report the highest neap tide was 20 feet on March 21, low water being 15ft. Mr. Bignell must therefore have taken measurements on a very high spring tide so as to extend the depth to another three or four feet. Surely Mr. Bignell did not seriously weigh the other very adverse figures before he displayed them for criticism, i.e., £1 Is. 9d. of indebtedness in 1911, compared with £3 3s. sd. in 1927 for every ton of goods handled ; 106 per cent, increase in tonnage,- 500 per cent, increase in indebtedness. How eloquently his own figures support 1 my contention that the struggle by small ports in order to provide accommodation for oversea vessels has been the.caused unsound expenditure of very large sums of borrowed money. Yet Mr. Bignell claims this as ‘no mean record of work accomplishment and developed upon sound economic lines.' Does anyone else think it is? “Compare these figures with Wellington, on Mr. Bignell’s basis: — 1911 1927 Loan indebtedness £796,000 £1.250,000 Tons. Tons. Tonnage handled 873,292 1,758,480 Ratio of indebtedness per ton of goods handled .. 18/3 14/21 “No allowance is made in Wellington’s figures of indebtedness for a sinking fund of over £414,000 in hand, which would bring the 1927 figure down to 9s. 6d. instead of 14s. 2?.d.. “Mr. Bignell will see that while his own ratio of borrowed money to goods handled has increased from £1 Is. 9d. to £3 3s. sd. per ton, Wellington shows a very remarkable decrease from 18s. 3d. to 14s. 2id. “It is true, as Mr. Bignell states, that Wellington and Auckland have each spent nearly as much on one wharf as Wanganui has done on all improvements. Money is considered wisely or unwisely spent iu accordance with the returns received. The two main ports mentioned have at least modern wharves, sheds and equipment, which will stand for all time, and at which the largest ships afloat could tie up in safety and handle their cargo with despatch. What has Wanganui to offer for the expenditure of £500,000 since 1911? Certainly the ‘

smallest oversea vessels can now enter at high water if the weather conditions arc most favourable, but all the others have still the same old berth iu the open sea. May I ask Mr. Bignell and Mr. Jull — What, would be the position of shipping in this country if main ports did not provide modern wharves in safe harbours? What would be the cost of freight to and from New Zealand if the

country could only offer shipping companies a berth at the mercy of the open sea at Wanganui or Napier, for their large cargo ships? Would not the freights be doubled, and the transport of our goods be slower, more dangerous, and half as efficient? Do these gentlemen not see that the modern wharves at main ports are most vital to the welfare of Napier and Wanganui, and every other roadstead port in the Dominion? These main ports have done more for those districts than their own, yet under the flat rate system we are unjustly penalised for providing these facilities. The Excluded Income from Wharfage. “Wellington is the only board which acts as wharfinger to any extent. They receive goods from ships’ slings, transport to sheds, stack and deliver all cargo for which a charge of 4s. per ton is made. At other ports this service is performed by others than the harbour boards. It is outside their present functions and is not, therefore, included in their returns. For example, of two butter factories in the Napier district, ‘A’ lets a contract to a carrying firm _to transport butter from factory to ships’ slings, while ‘B’ did this work with their own transport service. To get a true comparison of costs between these two factories, one must include the contract cartage in the case of ‘A’ or exclude it in the case of ‘B.’ This is exactly what I have done In regard to casual labour at Wellington, which I have described as ‘stevedoring.’ or, it Mr. Jull prefers it, ‘wharfingering.’ Will any just man say that this is unfair or improper? All responsible officials of boards are fully conversant with these facts. My figures therefore stand.

Overhead on Vessels. “It is true that I estimated the overhead on vessels in 1925 at £3OO a day, explaining that this was only an estimate, since when, however, I have receivcd reliable information that such cost is over £4OO a day. In view of this knowledge does Mr. Bignell suggest that it is improper to correct my estimate? Mr. Bignell further states that ‘without a blush I endeavoured to compare one port against another, notwithstanding the fact that I had admitted it impossible to do so.’ Had Mr. Bignell properly read the 1925 report he would not make such an assertion. I would ask him to read it again intelligently, when he will see that I only compared three ports out ot twenty-two for which a true comparison was available. Advantage to Districts. “It is admitted that some people in districts surrounded by small ports receive a benefit by oversea vessels calling to pick up cargo. My complaint is that they expect people outside their districts to pay for this privilege. They may have any service they choose so long as they are prepared to pay for it, but when they expect others to do so, the others have a right to object. All I ask is that shipping companies charge a freight rate to and from each port in accordance with the costs of service and facilities provided. This is in accord with honourable business practice.

cord witn iionouraoie oubiueDS piuiuic. Do Mr. Jull and Mr. Bignell support this principle? Administrative Charges. “Mr. Jull takes exception to comparisons in administrative charges. These were taken from the official figures, but on reviewing them I agree they may not be a fair basis of comparison. I sub-

stitute interest figures alone as given in the last official returns, for 1925. There can be no question about them. Rate

“These, I am sure, will be more to Mr. Jull’s liking, and, as they tell the same story, they are equally satisfactory to me. Mr. Jull states that no account is taken of the duplication of handling, the erection of cool stores and deprecia-

tion of meat, etc., also the fleet of insulated coastal ships. This same old bogey, that another supporter of the ‘call-at-your-farm’ policy put forward some time ago, was previously fully answered. Let me say again that concentration would mean no more handling and deterioration than the lightering system, but would make possible a faster, cheaper, more efficient and regular service than we have to-day. Htirhnnr Improvement Rate.

Harbour improvement ivate. “Let me inform Mr. Jull that the harbour improvement rate is absorbed by oversea shipping companies at Wellington and not passed on to his people in Hawke’s Bay. In fact, it is absorbed in the flat freight rate in the same way as the shipping companies absorb the extra cost of calling at the open ports such as Napier and Wanganui, the only difference being that the harbour improvement rate is Is. a ton, while the cost of calling at open ports may be over 30s. “Mr. Jull’s threat about sending Hawke’s Bay goods to Auckland for transhipment is too childish to be noticed. 1 . “I ask the chairmen of the Wanganui and Napier boards not to evade the main issue by smothering it with minor ones. I ask them again: “(1) Do they think the flat freight rate from and to all New Zealand ports fair to main ports which provide safe and modern wharves and every possible facil-

ity for handling ships and cargo? “(2) Do they think it economically sound and in the best interests of the Dominion to have large ships costing £4OO a day averaging ,42 days on our coast when less than half is sufficient, if national economy and efficiency in the shipment of our produce, and not parochialism, was the dominating consideration ? “(3) If these two gentlemen owned New Zealand and were directing the shipment of our produce as a private enterprise, would they not stop the expenditure of more, than half the ports and cut out the present flat rate and *cnll-at-your-fann’ policy in five minutes, when they knew it was possible to save a million a year thereby?”

Interest Tonnage per ton £ ' handled Gisborne .... 28,250 109,008 5/2 New Plymouth ' 30,725 178,207 3/5 Napier 30,512 214,291 189,924 3/4 Wanganui 30,000 3/1 Wellington 52,596 1,685,948 7