THE HUTT PORT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 80, 2 October 1944, Page 6

THE HUTT PORT

SHIPOWNERS' VIEW

WAIRARAPA OPPOSED

. The ' New . Zealand Shipowners! Federation, for' whom Mr. G. H; Norman,* secretary, and Captain S. Holm appeared, stated to the Hutt Harbour Commission today their opposition to the proposal to build a separate port for the Hutt Valley. The local bodies o£ the Wairarapa district, while not directly opposing the scheme, stated that they considered it unnecessary and that they did not wish to be involved in any way financially in the project, which, if carried out, should be the responsibility of the locality immediately served.

The federation considered that" if vessels were required to call at the Hutt in addition to Wellington delays would inevitably be caused which must be reflected in additional compensating freights; at present higher rates of freight to suburban wharves existed at Wellington. It was very, difficult to stow cargo" separately on coastal vessels, and there was bound to be confusion in the destination of a good proportion of any cargoes loaded for the ports of Wellington and Hutt on the same vessel. Shipowners would not be willing to go to the new port unless some minimum quantity of imports to the Hutt port was guaranteed. The members of the federation felt that the provision of the new harbour would simply mean a two-point discharge in the port of Wellington, with no doubt the addition of a two-point loading. That would involve numerous shifts of the ship, with very real consequential difficulties. It would still be necessary to transport cargo by motor-lorries to or from the new port, and the extra mileage .involved in carriage to and from "Wellington hardly warranted the cost of a new port LABOUR PROBLEMS. The federation discussed the particular difficulties which, would arise over the retention of cfews on ships in an exposed port, at either the river mouth or Port Howard, in place of their being given leave in their home port; and over shore labour, in respect of which heavy additional travelling payments would be incurred. It was considered that Hutt harbour could not take the place of Wellington as a port of transhipment of cargo for onward carriage by rait in the same way as, say, Lyttelton or Timaru. The bulk of cargo for transhipment by coastal steamers to other ports would, as a matter of ship economy, still be discharged at Wellington for onward transhipment; the new, port would merely accommodate cargo for industry established in the Hutt Valley, which would be limited.

; "Altogether the considered .views of ; the members of this federation, which ' includes as members the owners of the • great bulk of shipping registered in ' New Zealand, are that the expense of ' building a new■': harbour at the Hutt is unwarranted, and, from a practical ; point of view in the working of ships, would involve great difficulties, particularly in connection with the labour employed oh ships. Although :• such difficulties are not insurmountable they, would involve a heavy increase in costs which could only be recovered. by means of higher freights," said Mr. Norman. The overseas ship owners did not give evidence.; CITY FACILITIES ADEQUATE. Mr. T. R. Barrer said that at a meeting of representatives of the Wairarapa , district local bodies—eight counties and seven boroughs—the~prOposed development of a Hutt Valley port was discussed, and the views of those bodies were expressed in two resoltuions, which had been forwarded to the commission. The Wairarapa local bodies were satisfied that the facilities provided by the Wellington. Harbour Board were adequate to cope with all the requirements of the Wairarapa district in respect of both exports and imports, and that the construction of harbour facilities near the mouth of the Hutt River could not in any way improve on those facilities. They considered also that, should the commission determine that additional harbour facilities, should be constructed^; the cost of such installation should be borne entirely by the industrial and commercial Undertakings in the immediate locality. v ; .At the same time, said Mr. Barrer, if it was absolutely necessary that such a development should be pro- " ceeded with, the Wairarapa local bodies would not actively oppose it provided that they were not involved financially. : Mr. Barrer added that the Wellington Harbour Board had no rating powers. , *

Sir Francis Frazer: So that the Harbour Board would have to be .responsible for the cost of this harbour, and would have to spread the money by increased charges on the district as a whole by way of harbour charges unless, of course, there was a guarantee.

Mr. D. L. Taverner, Mayor of Carterton said that the local bodies of the Wairarapa were in no wav antagonistic •& the industrial concerns of the Hutt Valley, which, he presumed, were behind the harbour proposal, and if a Hutt port would assist •' them, then good luck to them, but W? iraJ" ap£ dld not wish to be involved. They considered that the cost £, •£ ,a d?>;elopment should be borne - by the locality which would "be served by tne port without recourse to rating in the surrounding districts, and'part nS 1 f%Jt % Wair-al^..-which co Puld ' Hutt a : neW P°rt Ht the'

effeot^ n^G?C? on: the P°3Sible eitect of pile-driving and dred«*ihff upon the Hutt Valley artesian system Su^ey^T^ °f GeologieS survey, JDr.T. Henderson, and the Deputy City Engineer, Mr. E. R. McKillop. Both considered that such bbera--tions would threaten the supply, by weakening or breaking through the impervious layer below which thi underground water moves at prLiS? and by causing such a lowering of