WHICH IS CHEAPER?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 23, 27 July 1911, Page 3

WHICH IS CHEAPER?

WELLINGTON OR AUCKLAND? HARBOUR DUES. COMPARATIVE TABLES BY THE LOCAL BOARD. WELLINGTON STILL THE PREMIER PORT. Which is the cheaper port for shipping—Wellington or Auckland? Attckland's comparative list of harbour dues said one thing, but a, report submitted at last night's meeting of the- Welling' ton Harbour Board declares against it. The chairman {Mr. R. Fletcher), in producing the report, explained that he, with the secretary and the engineer, had gone into the matter of the comparative Statement of harbour dues payable by oversea steamers recently circulated by the Auckland Harbour Board. The report before members was the result. "On the surface/ began the report, "this statement (Auckland's comparative figures) exhibit,* Wellington as the dearest port in tho Dominion, so far as ships are concerned, and if allowed to pass unchallenged might possibily do the port some harm. The rates in the statement are correctly quoted, but the fallacy lies ifl assuming that because a given rate is higher at ono port than at another the latter is necessarily the cheaper; in other words, in ignoring the differences of local circumstances and conditions of working." WELLINGTON BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY. "Comparing Auckland with Welling' ton, we find many important differences of method. In Wellington the board acts as wharfinger, and, in addition to (accepting responsibility, provides all the labour, manual and clerical^ involved in receiving cargo from the ship's slings, stacking in tho sheds, and delivering to vehicles or other ships. For these services the board charges the consignee or shipper an inclusive wharfage of 2s Bd' per ton for imports, 3s per ton fflff transhipments, and H 4d per ton for exports. In Auckland the board supplies none 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 the ships, in addition to paying the customary dues for pilotage, port cnarges, harbourmaster's fees, and ship* pfng wharfage, also have to bear the; cost of taking the cargo from the slings and stacking same in the sheds, with responsibility, till delivery is effected, the consignee, in addition to paying wharfage, having to provide his own labour for loading his vehicles. It is evident, adds the Teport, that "any computation of the comparative cheapness of the two ports must take these facts into consideration. SHIPS' CLAIMS GREATER IN AUCKLAND. The claim paid by ships in Auckland, it is noted, are seriously in excess of Wellington, both as to number and amount, the proportion being as 7 to 1. This «vas, no doubt, owing largely to the lack of a central managing authority similar to the Wellington Board receiving and delivering, and acting in the best interests of all. lv one instance ,-v vessel discharged at Auckland 5300 tons. Tho claims paid on her cargo totalled £370 6s 3d, £244 being for goods lost after landing, £93 xor goods pillaged, and £33 for goods damaged. In Wellington the same vessel discharged 1930 tons, nrtd the total claims paid amounted to && lbs fad. With regard to the dues set out in 'the present statement, the figures have been compiled from the published aceounta and statements of the Auckland and Wellington Boards, a table showing th« amounts collected under each head for the past six years. Taking pilotage, port charges, harbourmaster's fees, and shipping wharfage, Wellington had 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 same dues for the same periods collected 2.28 pence per ton on tho net registered tonnage of arrivals. This shows that Wellington, so far as these dues were con< ceMied, was the cheaper port and gave the better despatch. The point was madeclear by taking the particular items of berthage, shipping,, wharfage, and pilotage. During the six-year period Wel« lington collected £40,548 berthage rate on a total net register tonnage of 16,« 058,047 tons (or 0.36 pence per -ton), whilst Auckland for the same period levied £29,638 shipping wharfage on a total not register tonnage of 9,709,184 tons (or 0.73 pence per ton), showing that as the rate per ton per day is alike at both ports, Wellington gives the better despatch. Had the .length of stay been as great in Wellington as in Auckland the ships would have paid £48,852. or £8304 mor« ;than they actually did. WELLINGTON'S SUPERIORITY IN PILOTAGE. "Turning to pilotage," adds the"if£ port, "which is optional at both ports, the superiority of Wellington is even More marked. During the six-year period the Wellington Board received £2395 pilotage, which on the net register tonnage of arrivals is only 0.036 pence per ton; Auckland for the same period levied £8427, or 0.208 pence per net register ton. Had it unfortunately been necessary for ships t to t employ pilots, here in the same ratio as in Auckland, the Wellington receipts for the period instead of being £2395 would have reached a total of £13,927. Fortunately, however, this is not the case, and the two great elements of safety and despatch will probably long continue to outweigh in the minds of shipowners the extra cost which past boards have judged fair and necessary to levy in the shape of harbour improvement rate as a special contribution for the accommodation and facilities provided at this port." PORT CHARGES. "With respect to port charges and harbourmasters' fees, the two ports are practically level, the percentages being : Wellington— port charges 0.84 pence per ton, harbourmaster's fees 0.4/ pence per ton; Auckland—port charges 0.85 pence per ton harbourmaster's fees 0.48 per ton. The advantage, a very slight one, is with Wellington, but in this connection it is worth noting that whereas in Auckland £&o ocean steamers have to provide all labour in. mooring and unmooring, in Wellington the whole of this j is supplied free 0? charge by. the har- 1 bottnnaster'&-staff, no slight or negligible service, although it is difficult to tabulate tha cost to the board. OVERTIME RATES. "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, although it is to be j noted that in the statement under review a proposed increase in the shipping wharfage lot borthage fate) is shown, whicß would, if carried, practically nearly treble the existing charge. RESULTS SUMMARISED. "Summarising results, it is found that, omitting harbour improvement rate ami overtime shedding charge, Welliflgt&a's

I average for the sk-year period amounts to 1.95 pence per ton net register as against Auckland's 2.28 pence per ton for same services, the respective percentages for tho last financial year 'being: Wellington, 1.96 pence; Auck- [ land, 2.60 pence per net ton. Adding harbour improvement rat© and sTiedding charges the figures show :— For sis years— Wellington, 2.78 d; Auckland, 2.28 d; for 1910— Wellington, 2.98 d; Auckland, 2.69 d. In each case this shows a slight percentage in favour of Auckland. But when the extra cost to the ship in Auckland for work done in Wellington by the board an<l charged in the wharfage to consignees is borne in, mind, the rashness of asserting Auckland to be the cheaper port for the ship is evident. STEVEDORING FIGURES. Figures were giveh to chow that one very large shipping company paid the following rates for stevedoring :—ln: — In measurement cargo and ordinary weight cargo: Wellington, lOd per ton; Liverpool cargoes, Is per ton; rails, Is 2d per ton. In Auckland : Measurement cargo, Is 3d ton 5 ordinary weight cargo, Is Gd ton; rails, girders, etc., Is 6d ton. These rates cover delivery to and stacking in the wharf sheds. In addition to this a payment of 22s per 100 tons of cargo is made to a tally clerk for tallying and supervision. COMPARATIVE ACTUAL ACCOUNTS PAID. 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 the Harbour Boardj the cost of the extra work done by "the ship at Auckland amounts 5 10-16 pence per ton of cargo landed. The position as to claima paid by the same company for the same period is as follow : — Auckland. — 6 vessels discharge 24,900 tons: Claims paid, £731 4s lid; maximum for one vessel, £870 fa 3d ; minimum (1 Vessel), £23 12s 9d ; average (6 Vessels), £121 17s 6d ; average claim paid per ton. of cargo landed, 7.05 pence. Wellington.-"17 vessels discharge 60,711 tons: Claims paid, £262 0s 2d ; maximum for one vessel', £65 19s lid ; minimum (1 vessel), 6s; average (17 vessels), £15 8s 6d; average claim paid per ton bf cargo landed, 1.03 pence. IN A NUTSHELL. j The Whole position may be summed up aa follows :— Charges common to both ports-—-Wellington 1.95 d per ton, Auckland 2.28 d per ton; H.I. rate and shedding ! charge on net register tons— Wellington 0.83 d per ton, Auckland nil ; totals — Wellington 2.78 d per ton. Auckland 2.28 d per ton. Work done at Auckland by ship which at Wellington is paid by J consignee per ton of cargo landed—Wellington nil, Auckland 5.62 d per ton; claime-^Wellington 1.02 d per ton, Auck- j land 7.05 d per ton. From the foregoing (concludes the -report) it will be seen that a comparative statement mads up in the fashion of the one issued by the Auckland Harbour Board, while perfectly correct so far as it goes, is yet incomplete, inasmuch a-s it does not take into account the whole of the factors governing the working of the respective ports. Mr. t Fletcher briefly entered into explanation, Despite what had been said the figures— which were absolutely reliable—proved that Wellington stands as the premier port in the Dominion. Mr. M'Farlane mentioned some linee of imports which were dearer in Wellington than in Auckland owing to harbour dues. If Wellington desired to justify itself as the cheapest port itt the Dominion, ( this anomaly should be ; removed. TIME FOR CONSIDERATION. Mr. C. W. Jones, in speaking to the I report, declared that it was simply bristling with remarkable statements. He Would move that it be referred to the Wharvee and Accounts Committee. He wanted some time to get through it. It contained exceedingly"controvereial subjects, and he thought time should be given members to look through it I quietly. He did not think this should j go to the public as promulgated by the { board. There was a lot in the report he did not agree with, and there was a lot incorrect. The chairman : " The information is absolutely correct." They had had great difficulty in getting the information. An authority (named) had kindly volunteered the information ; not only that, he verified it. Personally, the ! speaker thought that the public should know how things stood. The whole matter was correct. Reference was mad© to the loss of a. lot of £244 -worth of goods in Auckland after being landed from the ship, and was never seen again. The recent disclosures in Auckland showed what had been going on there for a long time. More care and responsibility was assumed here. " BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING." , j Mr. J. G. Harkness extended his congratulations to both the chairman $nd Mr. Nicholls on the Teport. He agreed that such an important document should be postponed for consideration — for the full consideration of each member of the board. This was the biggest and most 1 important question the board had had to discuss, tot this reason he advised time for consideration. They ought to be perfectly sure that the matter to be sent out ehould be absolutely accu* rate. Members should have the opportunity of taking the report home and studying it, Personally, if that were doite he for one would discuss it at length. He moved in the direction of postponement until next meeting. Mr. Cobbe urged for the consideration of the people in the country, quoting instances of alleged hardship. Mr. J. Trevor was of the opinion, that there wa-s such a discrepancy between this report and the published statement that the difference could hardly be grasped. Was the difference between the dues of Auckland and Wellington simply the difference of the cost of discharge into the sheds? DISCUSSION POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT MEETING. " la a. thorough discussion of this document important?" asked Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh. _ He concluded by seconding the motion, for postponement until next board meeting. The motion wae carried on the voices.