HARBOUR BOARD CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 73, 19 December 1929, Page 12

HARBOUR BOARD CHARGES

IMPORTANT REDUCTIONS TO BE MADE NEARLY £16,000 PER ANNUM BENEFITS TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS Reductions in cliarges estimated to total £15,880 a year were, at last night’s meeting, agreed to by the Wellington Harbour Board on the recommendation of the special committee set up some time ago to go into that question. The annual saving to importers and exporters—chiefly shippers of wool, dairy produce, and fruit-— is calculated at £11,517, while ‘ shipowners will benefit to the extent of £4363 a year. The reductions were set out in detail in the report of the Charges and Finances Committee, which, having reviewed the financial position as at September 30, 1929, and considered the board’s future commitments and the proportion of dues paid by ships and merchants, recommended the following reduction in the board’s charges:— Inward wharfage on general cargo be reduced from 4/- per ton to 3/9 per ton, or by 6 2-3 per cent Outward wharfage on wool, ex shore, be reduced from 7<L per bale to 6<L per bale, or by 14 per cent, and wool, ex rail, from 6d. per bale to sd. per bale, or by 16 2-3 per cent Transhipment wharfage on wool be reduced from lid. per bale to 10d. per bale, or by 9 per cent Inward wharfage on wool be reduced from 1/- per bale to lOd. per bale, or by 16 2-3 per cent. Outward wharfage on butter from shore be reduced from 1/3 per ton to 1/- per ton, or by 20 per cent. Transhipment wharfage on butter be reduced from 4/- to 3/6 per ton, or by 124 per cent. Butter transhipped direct across wharf be reduced from 2/6 to 2/3 per ton, or by 10 per cent Outward wharfage on cheese from shore be reduced from 1/3 to 1/- per ton, or by 20 per cent Transhipment wharfage on cheese be reduced from 4/- to 3/6 per ton, or by 124 per cent. Cheese transhipped direct across wharf be reduced from 2/6 to 2/3 per ton, or by 10 per cent. Outward wharfage on fresh fruit be reduced from 1/6 to 1/- per ton, or by 33 1-3 per cent, and railway wharfage on fruit from 1/- per ton to 9d. per ton, or by 25 per cent Transhipment wharfage on fruit be reduced from 4/- to 3/6 per ton, or by 12J per cent, and that the same pnvilege be granted for cool storage of fruit as that granted for cool storage of butter, that is, transhipment rates be-allowed on such fruit landed in excess of the quantity that can. be coolstored by the board and which is removed from the wharves for cool storage and subsequently shipped, provided that such cargo is offered to the board for cool storage and refused by it on account of insufficient space and that satisfactory identification of the fruit is proved when the cargo is returned for shipment. The rate for dumping double dumps of wool be reduced from 2/1 to 1/11 bale, or by 8 per cent. The extra charge for payments made for handling cargo such as slag, cement, benzine, etc., be reduced from 2r. per ton on inward cargo to Id. per ton, and trom 3d. per ton on transhipment cargo to 2d. per ton. . . . , The harbourmaster s fees be reduced from Id. per ton to id. per ton, or by 25 per cent. , , The proportions of the reductions proposed will be made to: Importers and exporters .. Ships 4,363 £15,880 In order to minimise the loss now existing on the working of the board’s weighbridges, the committee recommended that the charge for weighing loads be increased from fivepence to sixpence per load, and that a charge of threepence be made for taring vehicles. The secretary was authorised to prepare the necessary consequential amendment i to the by-laws so that the new tariff might come into operation on April 1, 1930. Previous Post-war Reductions. In 1925 reductions in charges to the amount of £20,000 per annum were made. These reductions consisted principally of — 25 per cent, off export wharfage. 14 per cent, off railway exports. 11 per cent, off transhipment rates. 50 per cent, off the maximum cartage charge. 14 per cent, off harbour improvement rate on cargo. 25 per cent, off harbour improvement rate op coal. 33 1-3 per cent, off harbour improvement rate on fuel oil. and a free week’s storage was allowed on transhipment wool and hemp. In 1926 nrovision was made for a low rate of wharfage on artificial manures landed direct into railway trucks, by reducing the charge from 2/3 to 1/3 per ton. or by 44 per cent. In July of 1927 further reductions costing another £12.000 per annum were put into force. These reductions were mainly to assist exports, and in this conn Hon the ‘ outward wharfage on wool and skins was reduced over 20 per cent., on hemp and tow 25 per cent., and on butter. cheese, frozen meat, tallow, pelts, and hides in bulk the various rates were reduced by 20 and 25 per cent. The cost of wool dumping was reduced 2d. per bale, and provision was made for country importers to have the benefit of a free week’s storage on goods arriving on a through bill of lading for stations beyond twentyfive miles from Wellington. A further 20 per cent, was also taken off the harbour improvement rates on goods. A TIMELY MOVE VIEWS OF MEMBERS The chairman (Mr. J. W. McEwan) said the surplus for the last financial year, ended September 30, 1929. was £30,281. Of that sum £15.000 was set aside for the dock fund, which it was estimated would amount to £136,DU0 at the end of the present financial year. That left a balance to carry forward of £15,281. The question naturally arose: “Can we reduce the charges to exporters and importers during this year 9” The committee said it could be done to the extent of about £ll.OOO. and the shipping interests to the extent of £4OOO. making a total of £15.000. The committee, with the assistance of the general manager, had carefully considered the proposed reductions, and the report was now before the board for adoption. , „ “The adoption of the report, added the chairman, “will mean that the bylaws require to be amended. That will take some little time, so that the full effect of the reductions would not be felt this year. Should the board be so unfortunate to strike n bad year. which seemed improbable, they would still have their reserve fund. Since it hid been established ten years ago there had been do need to draw on it to balance the

board’s accounts. We can safely -say there will be no need to touch it for two or three years at least, but past then we eannot say.” Captain F. A. Macindoe; Did this committee consider abolishing the harbour improvement rate? The chairman replied that the whole of the question relating to the charges on ships was considered and the decision set out in the report. In regard to the question of water for ships, the chairman said the matter was still under consideration, and he felt justified in saying that a reduction w.ould certainly be made. The adoption of the report was then moved by the chairman. Result of Proposals. In seconding the adoption of the report Mr. C. J. B. Norwood thought the committee and the chairman should be congratulated on the result shown in the report before the board. He had been very nervous as to what would be the result of such proposals as were embodied in the report. He saw, however, in ahe report the most careful study of the various items. Mr. Norwood congratulated the committee on its report, and added that there seemed to be little missed. It could be seen that the reductions would not impede the progressive policy that the board had adopted. Mr. T. R. Barrer said that to attempt to wipe out the Harbour Improvement Rate would be such a violent wrench that it would be impossible for the board in its sober senses to agree to it. In due time, and as the occasion warranted, no doubt the Harbour Improvement Rate would be reduced until it was finally wiped out. On the Safe Side. The opinion that the proposals in the report were on the safe side was expressed by Mr. C. H. Chapman, M.P. The past year had been such that some reduction was justified. It would be too much to expect the Harbour Improvement Rate to be abolished in any case. There had been a downward tendency as far as the Harbour Improvement Rate was concerned. There seemed little difference whether the reduction was on cargo and ships charges or in the harbour improvement rate. The. board, however, had to have a certain safe revenue.

The findings of the committee were endorsed by Mr. H. D. Bennett, who said they were a step in the right direction, and one the board was justified in taking at the present juncture. They had boasted of the board’s fine facilities, and it appeared their bounded duty was to reduce charges to users and consumers if at all possible. It was obviously impossible to consider confining reduction to the harbour improvement rate; it would be impossible to consider the complete elimination of that source of revenue. “I think the committee has done wisely in spreading the differences as it has done in the report,” concluded Mr. Bennett. , , - ' Jlr. M. A. Eliott approved of the reductions. and thought the allocation quite a fair one. The time for such reductions was opportune. The Government and local bodies had increased taxation, and a reduction by such a body as the Harbour Board came at a very opportune time. Jlembers: Hear, hear. The announcement that the board was to reduce charges, said Mr. Eliott, not only on imports but articles of export, was a very fine example, which, he tnistea, would be followed bv other local bodies. Charges After 5 p.m. Congratulations were extended to the committee by Captain C. McArthur. The charge of one shilling per ton on cargo worked after 5 p.m.. however he considered a very obnoxious one. He hoped further reductions would be able to> De considered. It also seemed to him that the harbour improvement rate was not a fair charge. He hoped to live to see the time when charges would be practically Appreciation of the work of the commit tee was also expressed by Mr. T. Moss. Mr W. L. Fitzherbert, speaking as a member of the committee, said their task had been made easy by the work of the board’s executive officers, and to them and their efforts tJ*-- thanks of the board were due. . Mr. C. M. Turrell thought a port such as Wellington should not have a harbour improvement rate. He quite agreed that it could not be wiped out, but thought the reduction in charges could be centred on the harbour improvement rate more than at present. In this adjust? ment the board had departed from its principle ever since he had been a member—that was. anv increase or reduction was on a fifty-fifty basis for importers and exporters and ships. He also thought the 1/- per ton charge after s_p.m. should be eliminated. The ships paid the overtime. ' That charge should not be on the harbour by-lnws. “In this adjustment.” said Mr. Turrell, “ships have not received reductions in the same proportion to others as in past adjustments. The excuse for this is that last year the importers and exporters contributed more to the revenue of the board than ships. One year’s operations only should not be tai-"n into account. ...” Mr. .T. G. Harkness congratulated the executive officers on their work m laving the report before the board. He honed the reductions would be the forerunner of further reductions. After the chairman had replied, the adoption of the report wns then moved nnd carried unanimously.