BERTHAGE CHARGES

Evening Star, Issue 20346, 30 November 1929, Page 3

BERTHAGE CHARGES

PORT CHALMERS INDIGNANT THREAT OF ROYAL OOMMISSIOII “ We will get up a monster petition to Parliament asking that a Royal Commission bo appointed to inquire into the administration of the Port Chalmers wharves since they were taken over by the board,’’ declared Mr T. Scollay at last night’s meeting of the Harbour Board, ns being the intention of Port Chalmers residents if the board did not take steps to remove charges recently made. The Overseas Shipowners’ Allotment Committee wrote with respect to the matter of the reduction of the allowance made to Dunedin consignees for railage, etc., in the case of steamers, which through various reasons were unable to .proceed to Dunedin to discharge cargo, and tho secretary reported that he had replied in terms of the by-laws.

“This is a matter of considerable interest, because these matters of charges at Port Chalmers have pub this Harbour Board in a very bad light with shipping companies,” said Mr T. Soollay. “ Since the board took over the wharves at Port Chalmers the berthage charges have been doubled, and there has been a further charge of Is a ton on cargo discharged after 6 p.m. These charges have had a very bad effect, both on shippers and importers. The question will have to be looked into very carefully, and these irritating charges removed in the interests of the board and shipping.” It would be interesting to know, said Mr Scollay, whether the wharves at Port Chalmers were taken over at a very low figure from the Railway Department for the purpose of closing the port. Whether or not that was tiie case, Port Chalmers would certainly not allow its port to bo closed. “ We will get up a monster petition to Parliament asking for a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Port Chalmers wharves since they were taken over by the board,” declared Mr Scollay. “ This is not in any way a threat, but we are not going to see the port shut up.” The irritating and pin-pricking charges cm importers at Port Chalmers would not force the ships up to Dunedin, but would force the bigger ships to other ports, ’that would not be misfortune but disaster to the board. It was felt that the handicap placed on shipping was in no way justified or advantageous. The extra cost to the board of ships unloading at Port Chalmers after G o’clock was not id for five tons. The chairman had stated that the board could.. not have different charges for Port and Dunedin. That was illogical. The handling of shipping was a business matter. If a Dunedin licensee also conducted an hotel at Port Chalmers, the charges at the latter would be lower. He would not fix tho same charges, because both hotels wore alongside Otago Harbour. Ships using the main channel to Dunedin should pay for that service, but why should the charges bo piled ou ships not using the channel? Tho driving of _ the ships to other ports was too serious a matter. Mr Scollay also failed to see the logic or necessity for the doubling of the berthage charges at Port. The increases at Dunedin were made at the close of tho war, and, although ho had not investigated tho financial position sufficiently to speak with authority, tho board might be in a position to reduce the charges. Shipping owners naturally expected easier charges now. Mr Scollay moved that the whole question be "referred to the Standing Committee, with a view to ascertaining if relief could be given to ships at Port Chalmers from tho extra charges, Mr D. F. H. Sharpe seconded the motion. It was on the- right lines, as the tone of the letter indicated that the shipowners objected to the increased charges. When the Is a' ton charge was made at Dunedin, owners were given to understand that it was purely a war measure and would be removed as soon as possible, yet the

charge seemed to be established now as a by-law. The charge was made to cover the congestion in the sheds through ships unloading overnight. Yet the board had not spent one penny of tho charge for tho purpose for which it was collected. The charge was looked upon as an imposition. As to the berthage charges, those at Dunedin could have been reduced and those at Port Chalmers raised in keeping. Lyttelton had made considerable reduction in its charges, and it looked as if Otago might become a second rate port. Mr W. C 4. Love also supported the motion. When the distance of the Victoria Channel was compared with the short stretch of channel from the Heads to Port Chalmers the charges were unfair. The board was not treating the shipping companies right. The cost to tho board of tho Port Chalmers wharves was not excessive, but considerable expense would bo entailed in repairing them. Tho chargeSj however, looked to bo forcing the ships either to Dunedin or to other ports. The Is a ton overtime charge was an imposition. The chairman (Mr W. Cow) said there could bo no question of the wisdom of considering the matter in Standing Committee. The hoard itself had not created the difficulty of one charge for the whole harbour. That was required under the Harbours Act. However, the charges could be revised to remove a great deal of the difficulty.

When he was negotiating with the Government for the purchase of the Port Chalmers wharves, said Mr J. M‘C. Dickson, he recognised that there could not be two berthage charges, but he thought an increase could be made at Port and a reduction made at Dunedin to make -the increase lighter. The Marine Department would not recognise the lesser length of dredging in the Lower Harbour as a reason for different charges. Ho did not think the shipping companies had much to complain of, as tho charges were ultimately passed on to the consumers. Tho motion was carried.