HARBOUR CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 121, 24 May 1945, Page 9

HARBOUR CHARGES

SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE

MEETING HIGHER COSTS

On thie recommendation of the wharves and accounts committee, the Wellington Harbour Board, agreed last night that action must be taken at once to recoup increasing annual losses in the operation of the port resulting from increased working costs. With one of the country members (Mr. T. R. Barrer) dissenting, the board de- • cided to approach the Price Tribunal for permission to increase the port's bylaw charges to bring in another £170,000 annually. There was agreement among speakers, too, that a committee should be set up to investigate all possible savings and economies which might be effected.

In moving that the board should approach the Price Tribunal for authority to increase its charges, the chair*jaan (Mr. W. H. Price) said that the shipping trade and financial returns . for the six months ended March 31 showed a loss of £63,578, and it was not anticipated that there could be any improvement during the remaining half-year; which meant a loss of ap- , proximately £127,000 for the year. To that must be added wages increases to come into operation during the year, ■estimated at £38,000 per annum. Progressive increases in wages over the past few years, together with the additional increases referred to, would total approximately £108,000 yearly. Further, the costs of materials had ■ risen sharply over the war years; the '.trend of rising costs and prices had Ibeen general throughout New Zealand and every undertaking had been forced into the vicious circle.

"It is apparent that this board cannot continue with its low bylaw charges which have not been increased since 1937," said Mr. Price. . In May, 1943, the board had decided in view of the extensive wear and tear of plant and machinery due to ■war conditions and the inability to obtain materials and labour for adequate maintenance, to establish a repairs and maintenance reserve fund, he continued." That fund now stood at £57,047, which was far below the sum that would be required. Whilst it "was hoped to augment this fund each 'year, no provision had been made this year. . "The recommendation now before the board is to increase bylaw charges to return £ 170,000, but this does not /.provide for any surplus on present 'trade returns, nor does it include anything more than the usual transfers to insurance funds, etc. It is estimated :merely to balance our budget," concluded the chairman. COMPARISON OF-SYSTEMS. Mr. W. I. J. Blyth, merchants' and ..importers' representative, in seconding ithe motion, prs forma, said.that while -!he felt it was inevitable that a substantial increase in all rates must be 'applied for, he would like to see the more equitably distributed. ■The average increase sought was 36 i.per cent., yet the merchants were befing called upon to pay an increase of '50 per cent. Comparing the incidence of harbour ;<costs at Auckland and Wellington, Mr. fßlyth mentioned the case of an imf porter with branches in the two \centres. In Auckland the shipping Kcompany paid all charges until the ''goods were stacked in the shed. In Wellington the merchant paid all •charges" ex ship's slings. The freight 'charges to both ports were the same; ;why, then, should the Wellington merchant not receive the same treatment ;.-as the Auckland branch? It would ■.'be stated that Wellington acted as '.•■wharfingers, while Auckland did not, Sbut was that any reason why Wellington should be penalised by 2s 3d per Ston for that, service, which appeared if the present system was -to'continue?' , „ ■ ~ Mr W. L. Fitzherbert said that the sboard had been passing through a very •■difficult- period, particularly so-, iair^as •wages were concerned, for these nag •increased by £108,000 a year. As it •was imDOsible to. carry on at present rates of charges with so large an increase in expenditure it only remained for the country representatives to see that an even balance should be preserved as between exporter and importer, and the country members had done their utmost to assist the country districts in this direction with satisfactory results. Mr Barrer said that as a representative of the primary producers he must object to any proposal which involved a further increase m costs to those neople. Rather than ask the Price Tribunal to agree to these increased costs for a type of service which the board did not have to give, he would be prepared to consider adopting the Auckland system, where the board did not act as wharfinger, and therefore was not concerned m these costs. ; . ; Mr. J. O. Johnson pointed out that the desree of service given in Auckland did not compare with that given by the Wellington Harbour Board: the systems of working were entirely different. As a matter of fact, the position Which had now arisen had been long foreseen, and it had been only the influx of Americans and American shipping which had delayed the necessity for going to the Price Tribunal. Th» bylaw charges had remained unchanged since 1937-38, while all costs and charges otherwise had risen. _ ■ Sir Charles Norwood agreed that the position had been foreseen for some years, but had been held back by abnormal conditions. The board must have all the facts when it went to the Price Tribunal, and he would propose at a later staee that a. special sub-committee should be set up to' inquire into every angle. COSTS STILL TO BE MET.

Mr. Price said that he was strongly of the opinion that the board must go to the Price Tribunal without delay. In Auckland conditions were entirely different/ as Mr. Johnson had said, for the Auckland board did not act as wharfingers. At present Wellington lost on every ton of goods from the United Kingdom, for which its charges were 4s 6d, and the outgoings 6s. He himself would be very sorry to see Wellington's system of wharfingerine, which had proved successful for, 50 years abandoned now; and he thought that the people of the Wellington Harbour district would also regret its abandonment. What had to be remembered was that someone still had to pay for the service, and whether the payment was made to the • Harbour Board and to the merchant, or the contractor, the money still came from the public—it was merely a question of which tap was used. He pointed out to Mr. Barrer that charges on exported primary produce were considerably below those on imports.