CONCENTRATED PORTS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 90, 13 October 1923, Page 21

CONCENTRATED PORTS

COST OF DIFFUSION

BIG SHIPS ON SMALL JOBS

FREIGHT SYSTEM ATTACKED,

OVER-DECENTRALISATION,

New Zealand has over forty ports and over forty freeung v/orks, and. the question has been raised whether decentralisation, and the multiplying of small unitu, has not been over* dove, and whether, in the case of ports and freezing works a concentrating policy (in its turn, not to be overdone) is Seeded. A statement ou the ports question has been prepared for the Wellington Carnival and Advertising Association by Mr. G. Mitchell. Ho estimates that oversea eteamer6 on the avenge discharge only 235 tons at each port, and load only 400 tons. The first figure (inward cargo) is calculated an the basis of all poyte exclusive of Auckland and Wellington and the second figure (outwards cargo) is calculated on the basis of all ports exclusive oi the four main ports. Is it economic to send an overseas steamer (with standing and running charges equal to about £300 per day) to wait off small, slowoading ports, and lose their costly time in handling a cargo (both ways) of less than ;sil Th>B 1E pue question raised by Mr. AXlfcchell.

Again, if it is not economic, should the practice be masked and encouraged by a system of flat rate of freight, under which the cost ot working all ports (both the economical and the wasteful ones) is pooled, no that the same freight is paid from a port that offers «00 tons of slow business as from a port that offers 5000 tons o! quick business'; If higher freights were charged to costiv ports, and if business was thus driven to the fewer and better ports, would not the concentration of oversea shipping at these better ports, and the consequently greater volume of business, enable their harbour boards to give still bettor facilities for cargo-handling and for cool storage, and still lower port charges? But, if oversea steamers did not go to the smaller ports, how would the fro»en produce, now loaded direct at .the smaller ports, Bod suitable refrigerated tonnage for conveyance to the larger ports and for transhipment there to oversea steamers?

Tijis is a very important point, and Mr. Mitchell's remarks thereon will be read with interest. He emphasises the need of a coastal refrigerated service, but the question of- cost, and vayß and means, remains. He quotes (inures to show that the present coa6t»l service is used below its capacity.

"Throughout this Dominion, in fact throughout the world, there is a legitimate demand for a reduction in the cost of sea transit, a measure in which all would benefit if given effect to, but each effort in this direction is met by a reiteration by the shipping companies of the high cost of running ships due to the high cost of labour, coal, port, and other charges, together with the inordinate length of time occupied by vessels on the Dominion's coasts. It will be accepted that, so far as our country is concerned, we must pay the whole cost of freight both ways,' and all the charges ship's are put to plus interest and profit. All these charges are included in the freight. " The British Chamber of Ship. ping.makes this quite clear in the "Shipping Gazette," of 27th July:—'Every penny added to freight is added to the consumer's cost of goods.' As freights are calculated on the time and expense of gunning ships, the greater the time— the more expense—the higher the freight. Can this time and expense be reduced and freight lowered?

INWARD TONNAGE 235; OUTWARD

"We have about forty-six ports, including open roadsteads, of all grades around our coast. In the year 1922, Home boats picked up produce from nineteen ports or open roadsteads. According to the official returns, 1797 overseas vessels left the various ports in the year. 1922 (not including 43 sailing vessels). The total amount of overseas tonnage shipped direct by these, boats was 701,560 tons, or an average of slightly, under 400 tons each.

"Leaving out the ports of Auckland and Wellington, where the transhipments complicate the calculations, the shipments from all other ports average 450 • tons by - each Home boat leaving. The inward cargo discharged by Home boats (leaving out the four main ports) averages approximately 235 tons per call. This does not take into account the transhipments amounting as follows:— Wellington 329,785 Auckland , 60,358 All other ports ... 48,649 . Total 138,792 "It being impossible_ to state whether this is outward or inward cargo, or whether it is transhipped from coastal to ■ coastal boat, ov coastal to Home boat or vice versa, it therefore cannot be calculated, but in any case it does not affect the" issue. Therefore, to discharge an average, of 235 tons andload • 450 tons, a Home boat had to steam to the port, get alongside the wharf, or anchor in the open roadstead, go through all the work of preparing for discharging and .loading, pay harbour, pilotage, light, and other dues,and in many >';ases wait in the open roadsteads for days on, account of stress of weather. "But 'these port charges are only the small part of the coat of running a large ship. The interest, depreciation, insurance, labour, coal, provisions, upkeep, and other charges are, I am informed, not less than £3CO per day on an average Home boat, and all these costs are paid by our people through freight charges. It will be recognised that the average' quantity picked up by a Home boat from the nineteen ports from which produce was shipped direct overseas last year, was only sufficient to load a, small coastal vessel which could be run at a fraction of the cost. Can we afford the luxury of large ' Home boats costing £300 a day plus all port charges, light dues, etc., to call at nineteen ports in the Dominion to take approximately 450 tons per call at each port?_ Is there any other cheaper way of shipping the country's produce? Remember, the shipping companies are not philanthropists. We must pay and arc paying for this luxury by high freight charges. One case in point ;

A BAD CASE. EVEN IF IT BE EXCEPTIONAL.

'We have lately had a ship 73 .days on our coast. She made eleven calls and picked up a total of approximately 5000 tons of produce and general cargo, besides discharging her ±iome freight, and practically steamed twice round our Dominion to do so. Her total port charges, including light dues, were approximately £2500, and if her ?n aip-n# aud, rUnning charges amount to £000 per day, which I am informed is the minimum approximate daily cost ■™J™ a 6mP> thie would amount to j/^,400, or a total of uearly £26 000 from the time of her arrival to the unio oi her departure from the Dominion. If this ship discharged all the cargo die brought from Home and loaded her SOOO tons of oar produce at t-vo .main ports the discharging and loading could oe done, and the vessel dear of our shores again in al, most IS days and her port and standing and Tunning charges would not have exceeded £5500 a Ins vessel would, therefore, hays been Dack in treat Britain, discharged her produce and probably loaded up again Tor another voyage by the time she left these shores. The difference of approximately £20,000 represents this ship's bill of costs for the 'call at your farm ■policy.' Can we expect cheap freights under such conditions ?

"This may be an outstanding case; I hope it is, but it indicates trie cost'of the present wasteful and ex-

pensive system, the accumulated annual amount of which must be very great at the end of each year. This ship lay at one open roadstead for eight days before she could pick up 400 ton 3of produce. The port, over- I head, and running; charges during this I time were approximately £2500 or £6 5s per ton for every ton loaded. In j another case a ship waited six days at a secondary port before being able to load her cargo," and as the average load at this port was under 400 tons, this also would be ah expensive freight to handle. "SOMEONE MUST PAY." "These cases may be called exceptional, but these exceptions go on all the year round, and are imposing an intolerable burden on our community. Someone must pay. The cost of lifting the cargo mentioned may sometimes exceed the total freight charges, so by a flat rate the shippers in the main' ports, which provide all facilities for efficiently and expeditiously handling cargo, have to make good the costs at the ports I have mentioned which provide no accommodation or facilities.

_ "It is estimated that the present ports in New Zealand could handle the whole trade of our country in mach less than six months in the year. If this is so, a'i the capital involved, .standing and overhead charges are idle for the other six months. In other words, six months' trade has to pay for 12 months' cost. _' Beside this huge cost and inefficiency the delay in delivering cargo is causing great loss and hardship to merchants. For instance, one Home boat was 13 days coming from Auckland to Wellington: Wellington merchants had to wait for their goods while this boat called at the farms' down the coast.' How long South Island merchants had to wait ls not chronicled. In another case goods discharged from a vessel in Auckland were sold and delivered in Wellington by rail about 10 days before the vessel which brought them to Auckland arrived at Wellington. Our merchants' goods were held up while the Home boat crawled along our coast picking up small consignments of cargo which should have been picked up by a small c°ast; al boat at a fraction of the cost. IJie greatest inducement to our people to go on making more ports round our coast and extending old ones is the flat freight rate from all ports. This js an unjust burden on main ports. If a Home boat will call at a roadstead port for 400 tons (and wait for eight days until the weather permits half a day's loading) at the same freight rate as at a main port, where she could lay in safety and lift 8000 tons at the same time, no one can blame the consignors around our coast for talcing advantage of this liberal treatment by the shipping companies. Nor can the shipping companies expect a reduction in charges from the main ports which they do not support and encourage. The trouble is that someone else must pay for this luxury conferred on the coastal ports. "Mr. Gordon Wesclie, genera] manager of the P. and 0. Steamship Co., stated :—'Of all the ports I have visited! in various parts of the world, I give the palm to Wellington for the most modern system of loading and discharging vessels and handling cargo.' Yet our port receives no benefit for all these advantages."

WELLINGTON IS CHEAPEST PORT.

At this point Mr. Mitchell quotes from figures given by the British Chamber of Shipping in its demand for lower port costs in the Dominions. To illustrate port costs in New Zealand, the chamber gives details of the charges incurred by two oversea, steamers (specific cases) that recently called at New Zealand. There ! is a table showing the cost per ton of : port and stevedoring charges at six New Zealand ports . (Wellington, Timaru, Bluff, Dunedin, Lyttelton, and Auckland, whose names appear in the table as contractions) and the percentage by which the cost at each of the last five exceeds the cost at Wellington. Ist Ship. Wn. Tim. Bit. Dun. Lyt. Akd Ton cost, 6/1 7/4 7/9 8/0 8/10 8/10 £fd S °hY P r WD" ~2027 31 <5 « ?°c n oTerVnT 'i 6 Z ~ "si 6 B{ 7 °- 9£ "This," says Mr. Mitchell, "shows Wellington to be outstandingly. the cheapest port in the Dominion, and sup. ports Mr. Jessep's statement of the cost of a ship 9071 tons net remaining 72 hours in the following porta:— Cost of Ship So Ai« 2 hlh 7 D^ 3 p.c over Wd — M 49 8 , The above refers to ship charges only. A comparison of charges paid by the consignee from ship to store in the city area (including one week's free storage in each case) shows that.the cost per ton from ship to-store works, out as under:— Cl.ri.tehm* °p,irs|- T ™»hie*ent .Aucklp.nd nlus 3/. s/o WeUington ......... p Pl U s 7% c/ C S/maximum 4/6 minimum "Christchurch has the disadvantage of ! rail freight. It will be seen that not only is Wellington the cheapest port for the ship, but also the cheapest port for the merchant. _ "We- are equally anxious with- the Chamber of Shipping, shipping companies, and producers to reduce port charges, but the Chamber of Shipping and shipping companies discourage us from bo. doing. Our port ig by far the cheapest in the Dominion according to their own showing, yet we receive no benefit from shipping companies for our fine harbour, wharves, and facilities. They send ships miles round our coast to pick up a few ton's of produce and wait days to do ao at the same freight rates as from WeUington, which supplies them with a safe berthage and facilities for quick dispatch. I

MOKE SHIPPING MEANS STILL LOWER KATE. . .>

Let the shipping companies lower the "eight to our port in keeping with "the facilities and services provided, and the Harbour Board in turn will, I am.sure meet them with a reduction in port charges,, because the greater volume of business will, permit them to do so. The mam ports not only receive no benefit tor all the equipment and accommodation they provide, but are taxed to make up the loss of time and expense for ships calling at all the other ports around our coast.

According to the official statistics we have over forty ports (including open roadsteads) of all grades working im the Dominion. In the year 1922 the figures showed the total indebtedness by harbour boards to be £7,500,000 total annual receipts £2,053,224. It will be seen, therefore, that the capital expenditure and annual charges of harbours m New Zealand is very great in comparison with the population and trade of our country. -"The natural, facilities of our coastline encourage us to build new ports and extend existing ones in advance of requirements. This applies to all ports. But the mnin ports are forced to make provision for large ships, better storage, handling- facilities, and for new classes of trade as they develop. For instance, Wellington is now makinc whan provision for the handling of oil fuel, which is a, rapidly-growing trade, and must be provided for. 'Let us not be misunderstood. Tile coastal ports are most valuable to the country f or the purpose they should naturally serve-coastal trade and feeders to the large ports—but our trade today and the prospect for the future docs »ot justify us in endeavouriug to cater

for overseas trade at all these small ports. Besides which we have spent thousands of pounds on making harbours where Nature never intended one should be, and Nature in these cases usually beafe the man!" The alternative to the present policy is :—

(1) The provision of modern cool stores by harbour boards at the main ports, equipped with the most modern shed room and mechanical methods of discharging cargo and loading produce (2) Refrigerated coastal vessels to distribute general cargo and collect produce at all coastal poTts. Produce would then be placed in the cool stores at the main ports or be transhipped direct to the Home boats at these ports. (3) Home boats to come direct to the main .ports, discharge their cargo, and load produce from train, cool store or coastal boat.- ■ '

Under such a, policy the Home boats would call only at the ports which provided berthage and modern facilities for rapid discharging and loading.. The coastal trade would be done by coastal boats at a fraction of the cost.

COASTAL BOATS 1 SURPLUS

CAPACITY.

"It will be rightly asked what extra coastal boats would be required to carry out such a policy. An examination goes to show that there are now sufficient coastal boats on the coast to carry all produce to the main ports. Takine the six secondary ports: In 1922 coastal boats delivered to them 300,000 tons of general cargo and took away only 100 000 tons, or one-third of the tonnage they took in. The total produce shipped from these ports was 260,000. It is therefore reasonable to asume that the coastal boats which took in 300,000 tons could bring out 260,000, yet they came awa-v with one-third of their load/ and 233 Home boats called to pick up the balance. If coastal boats which now call at the various ports were given this trade instead of only one-third of it, coastal freight could be proportionately reduced It would thus be a double saving by a reduction of the present coastal freights by giving a load both ways and the expense of sending- valuable and expensive Home boats to these ports. I realise that some of ths coastal boats collecting the cargo mentioned are coal and timber boats, and could not be used for the purpose of conveying produce to the main ports as a back load. But, allowing for all probable exceptions, there appears to be enough tonnage now trading on the coast t 0 collect the whole of the exportable produce from coastal ports. "There would be a considerable initial outlay in providing suitable insulated coastal boats, but the annual charges on such capital outlay would be small in comparison with the present annual cost to the Dominion of the 'call at your farm' policy by Home boats now "employed.

"The only factor against reasonable concentration is the question of whether such a policy means excessive handling and deterioration of our exports. This is a vital matter. At all costs the quality of our produce must be maintained and improvements made where improvements are possible. If, therefore, a system of concentration means the lowering of the quality of our meat, butter, and cheese, it would be a complete and final answer to the policy I advocate. But concentration does not necessarily mean that our produce would suffer in the slightest * degree. By improved methods of handling, which concentration would make possible, there is a probability that our produce would leave these shores in better condition than it does to-day. With an extension of the trade at the main ports we would be justified in building cool stores and installing mechanical produce conveyers, -which would not only expedite the loading of vessels but would protect our produce from the damage incurred in the present method of loading. lam informed that one of the chief contributing causes in the shrinkage and deterioration of produce, especially cheese, is the opening and closing of the hatches occasioned by calling at many ports for small parcels of produce, thus causing a constant variation of temperature. QUALITY OF PEODUCE NOT HURT. "There is no reason to assume, therefore, that reasonable concentration with improved methods of handling will in any way adversely affect the quality of our produce. "There is another aspect that must not be overlooked. The cost of Home boats picking up coastal cargo is taken out of the country, whereas the total lost of the coastal service is retained here. "Reviewing our own port : We have now the most modern facilities and accommodation, which has been demanded from time to time by the users of our port. The port could handle two or three times its present trade with practically no extra standing or overhead cost. We have also the cheapest port in the Dominion, but labour under two distinct handicaps. Firstly, the flat freight charged by the shipping companies from all ports, good or bad, with or without facilities, from those where they can load 100 tons in eight days or 8000 toag in the same time. Secondly, the wretched railway outlet to the countoy east and west and the high railway charges. It is the duty of the Chamber of Shipping to adjust the former, and there should be no Test for any of the bodies and people interested in the development of Wellington until the present railway handicaps are removed by a new railway station and yard, a new line to Tawa Flat, and a deviation of the Rimutaka railway."

w T v re