NO ACTION

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22447, 30 September 1947, Page 2

NO ACTION

OVERSEAS VESSELS LOADING AT GISBORNE REPLY TO HARBOUR BOARD “We seem to be no further ahead than we were, but we shall have to keep hammering away at the committee until we get something of what we want," said the chairman, Mr A. J. Nicol, at yesterday’s meeting of the Gisborne Harbour Board when further correspondence from the Overseas Shipowners’ Allotment Committee on the loading of overseas vessels at Gisborne was /under review.

Following the previous meeting of tjie board, when a letter was received from the committee pointing out various factors why Gisborne could not be used for loading overseas vessels, a further letter refuting many of the points raised was dispatched by the chairman to the committee. The reply, dated August 20, which was read at yesterday's meeting, stated that the board’s letter had been fully considered by the committee. “Nowadays, ships costing upwards of £1,000,000 cannot continue the old 'call at your door' system of loadingcarried on until the outbreak of war—for minimum quantities of 10,000 freight carcases. Furthermore, the Gisborne Lightering Stevedoring Company, Limited, has not sufficient lighters and the waterside workers available are too few to work four gangs," stated the letter. ' Minimum Loadings “To maintain timetables with- vessels working roadstead ports it was always necessary to curtail to a minimum the cargo to be loaded at such ports, not necessarily 10,000 freight carcases, but such quantity as could reasonably be loaded while the weather might be expected to hold. “Labour difficulties are experienced at roadstead ports as well as wharf ports, and under the railways programme of replacements more vehicles are steadily coming into use and new vehicles are arriving from overseas and being brought into commission.” An assurance had been received from the Railways Department that it could handle the output of freezing works that it was now handling, stated the letter. 'We see no insuperable difficulties in centralising the wool—at the expense of the overseas carrying vessels as in the case of refrigerated and other general cargo—as was frequently done pre-war to avoid putting overseas vessels into Gisborne. “We have now the benefit of rail access to Napier, whereas pre-war it was a case of sending wool down by coastal vessel or by road transport. Moreover we would continue the prewar practise of coasting a considerable volume of the wool to Auckland, Napier and Wellington for transhipment.” Centralisation of Cargo The letter in conclusion stated that the cost of centralisation was definitely a burden on overseas vessels and would have to be reviewed from time to time. At present the committee was quite satisfied that the centralisation of cargo was the proper and most efficient policy to follow, and the one affording the best dispatch of primary produce, which was a matter of paramount urgency.

Prior to the letter being formally received by the board, Mr I. J. Quigley said that it was a rare occasion that a boat came to Gisborne before the war for only 10,000 freight carcases. The average loading was for 20,000 to 25,000 carcases.

He was also aware that there were not sufficient lighters or waterside workers in Gisborne at present to work overseas vessels, but the committee had been assured *nat if the boats came back to Gisborne the port would be properly equipped. He thought that the waterside workers would go where work wa3 offering Mr C. H. Williams thought that the committee had not taken into consideration the Dominion aspect of the matter. The policy of the Government was decentralisation and he thought that Gisborne was of sufficient importance to be considered one of the ports where this policy could be effected. He could not see anything further that could be done at the moment, but the position would be reviewed by the board from time to time, said the chairman.