WHARFAGE CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 219, 12 June 1930, Page 8

WHARFAGE CHARGES

Wellington Board’s Case REPLY TO CRITICISM Dominion Special Service. -J- Palmerston North, June 11. Arguments to refute statements made with regard to the wharfage charged by the Wellington Harbour Board were put forward at yesterday’s meeting of the Palmerston North Chamber of Commerce by Mr. M. A. Eliott. "In a statement presented at the last meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Stuart made two assertions which •were quite wrong and which I will now disprove,” said Mr. Eliott “Mr. Stuart stated: (1) That the Wellington Harbour Board made a difference in wharfages in favour of exporters as compared with .importers of 400 per cent.; (2) that owing to lighter wharfage charges at Auckland, goods could be imported by Hamilton merchants at. 5/- to 7/- per ton cheaper than Palmerston North merchants could import similar goods through Wellington.” Export and Import Charges. In reply to the first point Mr. Eliott submitted the following figures.— In Wellington efp » M2 <s g a> * . 4 31 Si Farm produce outward per 10-sack ton 1/6 ton fid. General cargo outward 1/6 ton fid. General cargo in- „ . ... ward •• •••••• 3/9 ton 3/9 Gross percentage of difference between outward, and in- ' ward 150 P-C. 400 p.c. Thus Mr. Stuart had made an,error of only 250 per cent in his figures. The difference was also less to-day than in 1925 and ndt greater as stated by Mr. Stuart. The wharfage on inward cargo quoted included labour costs, such as receiving cargo from ship’s slings, giving a receipt therefor, trucking, sorting, stowing in tdud, on* night free storage, and deli-

very to consignee’s vehicle. These labour costs were assessed at a total of 2/6 a ton, which amount, deducted from the 3/9 a ton, left the net inward wharfage on English and foreign goods 1/3 a ton, and on Australian and coastal goods, including harbour improvement rate, it was 2/3 a ton. The outward wharfage was 1/6, less labour charges estimated at 5d., leaving net wharfage 1/1 a' ton, or a difference of 15 per cent, inward and outward wharfage on English and foreign goods, and 107 per cent, on Australian and coastal goods, the latter being due to shipping companies passing on the harbour improvement rate. Yet Mr. Stuart asserted that there was a difference of 400 per cent. It was now up to him to prove the correctness of his figures (which he could not do) or admit his error. He apparently did not understand that wharfage charged to importers included all the service for labour costs as mentioned above, whereas the service to exporters consisted of unloading their vehicles only. Comparison With Auckland. In reply to the second point, Mr. Eliott said Mr. Stuart had made a bald assertion that there was a difference of 5/to 7/- per ton in favour of Auckland and had not produced any evidence in support of his statement. Mr. Eliott had letters from the Chambers of Commerce in Auckland and Wellington and from merchants in Hamilton and Palmerston North which could be produced if necessary. The information was as follows:— INWARD CHARGES ON GENERAL CARGO. ' d . * -2&m 5 « 2 . « fl . Wharfage 2/6 3/9 Cartage and labour (contract rates) ... 5/- 3/Total charges from, ship’s slings to merchant’s store 7/6 6/9 One of the largest importers in Hamilton wrote:—“The wharfage charge in Auckland on overseas goods is practically the ’same as Wellington.” Those facts should effectually prove the fallacy of Mr. Stuart’s statements, said Mr. Eliott.