LOADING SHIPS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 121, 24 May 1928, Page 6

LOADING SHIPS

FLAT RATE DISCUSSED HARBOUR BOARD'S VIEW COMMITTEE TO REPORT There was a great deal .of discussion at last night's meeting of tho Wellington Harbour Board over a notice of motion brought forward by Mr. G. Mitchell to the effect that the board should again place on record its protest against tho system of. a flat freight rate from all parts of New Zealand. Mr. Mitchell also moved that a committee be sot up to report to the hoard on the matter. During tho evening Mr. Mitchell agreed to withdraw the fust part of his motion. The second part was carried. Mr. .T. G. Cobbo presided. Tho motion, as slightly amended, was as follows:t—"That a committee be set up to go into the question of the flat rate iii all its bearings and make a roeomniendatiQii to the board as-to the best methods to bo adopted to bring about any.desired change, if considered advisable, such committee to consist of the' chairman, Messrs. C. M. Ttirrell, T. E. Barrer, M. Gotten, 0. H. Chapman, and the mover (G. Mitchell).'' Mr. Mitchell said that it had been said that, the question of a flat rate to alt ports was no concern- of the board's, but if the users of the port wero being unjustly penalised to make up the loss incurred by an unjust system in calling at other ports, whose duty was it to protect them? We had not only a right but a duty to make our voice heard in the matter. More especially was that iSO when there was a possibility of say- j ing the country £1,000,000 a year in shipping charges. ''We are an island people, isolated from the world except by the. sea," he ■said. "A safe harbour with modern wharves and conveniences.is, therefore, a vital necessity, What would be the economic condition of our country if we had no deep sea ports or modern wharves; if we could not offer anything better .than an anchorage in tho open sea outside secondary ports; if imports could only be discharged and our wool and. meat and butter and other produce loaded when the weather was favourable and the sea calm? Would not the shipment of our produce be delayed and uncertain, its arrival at the Home markets be irregular and unreliable, and all the attendant risks, costs, and losses be considerably increased, resulting in a freight cost perhaps 50 per cent, to 100 per cent, more than to-day? This extra co.t would be a burden on every producer in tho country, and woultj most seriously affect our progress and prosperity. Fortunately; however, we aro blessed with a number of deep sea ports, whero every modern faciilty for the safety and handling of ships is provided. Will Mr. Tui-rell, or anyone else, dony that these main ports aro a haven of refuge to their ships, and make it possible for the shipping Service to our country to be what it is to-day, and also make it possible for our produce to compete on tho Home market with that from other parts of tho world? '' C ALL-AT-YOUR-FARM '' POLIbY. "I think it is clear to every thoughtful person that tho main ports are essential to tho shipping companies and necessary for the well-being of our country; yet the effect of the flat rate and 'call-at-your-farm' policy is that the shipping companies say, in effect, 'Your safe and modem wharves and tho facilities you provide mean nothing to us., Wo will anchor our ships in the open sea at any loadstead port, risk all tho delays and dangers caused by the weather, pick up anything- they may send to us by lighter, and charge them the same for doing this as we charge you at your modern port, where our ship can lie in safety and load without delay.' "This policy of tho shipping companies has caused, and is causing, an expenditure of money in endeavouring to provido ports round our coast Jfar in excess of tho country's requirements, besides which it is delaying the shipment of our produce. It causes a delay of ships round the coast that has to be paid for by our producers, and makes the shipment, of our produce slow and irregular. The system of the flat rate is foreign to every principle of justice and economy. Mr. Turrell said, and I would challenge liim again to repeat his absurd statement, that numerous freezing works scattered • all round our coast were economically sound and in the interests of our country; in spite of the fact that time has proved them to be economically unsound. They are being gradually eliminated by a process of liquidation or concentration". "I would ask," he concluded, "why should we spend another, sixpence on our port for tho convenience of shipping if tho shipping company will ■handle tho freight at the same cost by anchoring-.their ships out in tho harbour in the same way as they do at open roadstead ports? Wo could at least offer them" a safe anchorage from which they need not steam to sea whenever a wind^ blows. I suggest that there are Btill weapons you can use to protest against this unjust policy. If the shipping companies will not remove the burden of the flat rate from the users of main ports, the port authorities can transfer the whole of the charges now paid by the users on to the ships, and in this way make a most effective protest against the injustice main ports arc now suffering under." A NATIONAL MATTER. ; Mr. C. -M. Turrell said that to start with he considered that the matter was quite outside the province of the Wellington Harbour Board, and that it was; purely a national matter. The duty of the Harbour Board was to provide suitable moans and equipment for the trado of tho port. As a shipping mail, ho knew that Mr. Mitchell's figures were Worked up from a. wrong foundation. Anybody that knew the position knew that there was nothing like the saving of a million as mentioned by Mr. Mitchell in the way h« suggested. As far as the shipping companies and the public were concerned, the shipping companies were there to do the best for New Zealand, and they would do what was required of them. If the country wanted the whole of the trade confined at two main ports. . . Mr^ Mitchell: "I never said that." Mr. Turrell said he was referring to previous remarks. Mr. T.--B. Barrer:- '.'A point of order. Aro wo discussing tho motion beforo the meeting or a previous speech?" Continuing, Mr.'Turrell said that the Wellington Harbour Board's duty was to provide suitable equipment and facilities for the trade of the port. The board was doing that successfully under the present conditions,- and had earned the approbation of the users of tho port, but "a change such as was suggested would entail an enormous expenditure to provide additional wharves and sheds, and before the board committed itself to such expondituro it would need to be absolutely sure of the future policy. Judging by the amount of money expended on harbour works in the secondary ports, for which in many eases the farming community had made itself responsible, it was hardly likely that tho Wellington Harbour Board could .expect any material change from the present policy. Mr. Turrell added that it would be absurd for him to be added as a member of tho committee, because ho was not in agreo-^ ment with the idea in any* way whatso-'

ever. Ho emphasised again that tho question was a national matter, and not within the province of the Wellington Harbour Board for decision. A COMMITTEE FAVOURABLE. Mr. C H. Chapman said he wished to support tho proposal to sot up a committee. There was no quarrel between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Turrell. Members: "Not at all." Ml*. Chapman agreed th&t tho matter was of .national importance, and said that overy harbour board must recognise that fact. The Wellington Harbour Board would be justified in setting up a committee to go into the matter for the purpose of making a report. Tho committeo might make it clear that something should be done. On the other hand, it •might be found that Mr, Turrell's suggestion should be recommended. ' -Some ports had greater fagiiities. than, others. Thero Was a danger that we might have what could be-:termed "political ports," subsidised and uneconomical. Mr.1 M. Cohen" said 'he agreed with Mr. Ttirrell, that' what happened at other, ports was not the business of the AVellington Harbour Board. The board was concerned with one thing only—the port of Wellington."■.•'lt was the duty of the board-to inquire as tp tho incidence of -the flat, rate, buti not as to how the shipping companies should manago their:.own businesses, . If-it was felt that the users of the board were not getting what the board believed was a "fair deal," then it was up to the board to say so, and it was only for that reason that ho supported the motion moved by Mr. Mitchell. He favoured the setting up of a committee, and asked Mr. Turrell to reconsider his decision not to: sit oh it. Mr; Turrell was the man who would be able to put before' the committee all the things on the other side that did not appear now. He did regard the application of the flat rate almost as a monstrosity, but he might be wrong. He considered the setting .up of a committee as a most desirable step. i Mr. Ji W. M'Ewan said it was undoubtedly a national question. He understood that the flat rate was arranged between tho shipping companies and the Meat Board in the first ph-.ee, and that there was an attempt to deal with the matter on national lines. Perhaps the Wellington Harbour Board did not get the business it would like to get, and therefore, a change, from the Wellington Harbour Board's point of view, was desirable. They could not expect the Government/ representative of political parties, to taeklo the problem. '..'"-' ' Mr, T. Moss said he would like to see Mr. Mitchell withdraw his first motion. Captain 0. M'Arthur expressed the opinion that if others thought that the Wellington Harbour Board was going to try and affect the policy of other boards, trouble would be caused all over New Zealand. . '. . Mr. T. R. Barrer. pointed out that eighteen months or two years ago insurance companies saw fit to reduce the insurance rate. ' Did tho port of Wellington get any benefit from tiie reductions, made? The reductions went to the secondary ports. Could tho board go on improving plant and appliances in view of such acts as those? Why should the board, continue spending money aud get no benefit from itf ! CONTROL BOARDS TO BLAME. Replying, Mr. Mitchell said that he never said that there should be two ports or ten ports. That was a matter for-other authorities and not. for him to decide. He considered that the Dairy and Meat Control Boards wero to blame, and that it was the duty of the Government to set up a tribunal to consider tho whole question of transporting. Ho had no feeling for Wellington or: aliv other port, but had tackled tho matter as a citizen in tjie interests of tho citizens, and he bolifeS*-' ed that -the work he-had done, had had a material effect right throughout the country. Ho hajl never desired to interfere with the policy of other ports. He would say to them, "You can have anything you like to pay for, but don't ask us to pay for it." He had no desire to press his first' motion, and would wittidraw.it with the concurrence of the seconder. His only desire in the matter was to seek the truth, and he did not care whether the truth was for him or against him. In, finding the truth'he believed that a groat dear would be done for the welfare of the country. (Hear, hear.) Tho chairman, referring to the small freezing companies mentioned in the courso of the discussion, stated that some had .pen of the greatost possible value to the farmers who had secured considerably better prices for their stock. He was opposed tothe flat rate as much as anybody in the room. He placed the blame on the Meat Producers' Board, and said that there were reasons why it was done; and the Dairy Board went into it. The Government was not responsi-le. Mr. Moss said it was .in existonce before the Meat Board came into existence. Tho National Dairy Association contracted a flat rate with the shipping companies. ' ' ■." On being put to the vote, Mr. Mitchell^ second motion was carried. Mr. Turrell intimated his willingness to act on'the committee.