HARBOUR CHARGES

Grey River Argus, 25 August 1945, Page 8

HARBOUR CHARGES

WELLINGTON BOARD REFUSED PERMIT FOR INCREASE P.A. WELLINGTON, Aug. 24 Wellington Harbour Board s application for permission to increase its dues and rates by thirty-seven per cent, on the ruling 1937 levels in been deferred by the Price Tribunal until October 1, 1946. The Tribunal’s judgment, delivered yesterday, would De reconsidered beiore that crate should anything serious arise winch necessitated a review. The Tribunal stated: Since the application was heard Japan has surrendered ana in view of the tribunal this tremendous factor points a way to a return to the Board of good trading conditions, if not within the immediate future at all events over the next few years. It seems the Board’s outlook is in the long run one wmch may be regarded with confidence. As far as the Tribunal can judge it would be a great pity if. the xioarcl gave up the business of a wharfinger which it has followed since its inception, and which has no doubt been done with efficiency and satisfaction to the business community. It was urged that as a result of increase in wages which it has been necessary to pay since the Waterfront Control Commission came into existence, the position of the Board would not be remedied by increase in business, as a large portion of it at any rate was being done at a loss, but it appears to the Tribunal that having regara to the past years' working, and in particular the year 1943, an increase 111 cargo tonnage handled would result in improvement of the Board’s position. The Board has no bank overdraft and the Tribunal considered in the present emergency recourse could reasonably be had to tnat method of financing. It was the Tribunal’s ordinary practice that applicants for price increases in rates or fees for services should be required to absorb increased costs when they were in a position to do so. The balance of the Board’s accumulated funds account was at the present time in a very substantial reserve, which it was considered could meet any temporary excess of expenditure over income. It has been the Board’s policy to make capital payments out of revenue and though this proceaure was undoubtedly a desirable one for local bodies to follow, where possible, nevertheless, the effect had been to reduce substantially, cash resources available for financing of the Board s operating expenditure. The Tribunal considered the present position of the Board’s cash resources had been brought about largely by this practice. It was the Tribunal’s opinion that to remedy the present position relating to cash resources, the Board should give consideration, in future to the financing of furtner capital works by means of loans.

WATERFRONT COMMISSION UPHELD P.A. WELLINGTON. August 24 A decision to-day by the Court of Appeal relating to the powers exercised by the Waterfront Control Commission held that the Commission, in making orders concerned, was not acting in excess of its powers. nor was it exercising a judicial function beyond its legislative powers, as had been contended. Rererring to a contention that Order No. 116 was in conflict with a main order, the Court held that where there is such conflict, minimum payments are to be made in accordance with Order 116. The main order remainea in force, but was subject to Order 116. On the question of shift work, the Court held’ that, with certain exceptions, workers ordered down or back are to be paid rates set out in Order 116. Shift work may not be discontinued, except with the consent of the Waterfront Controller or other representatives of the Commission. It does not rest with the workers or employers to decide, to cease work because of wet or windy weatner. The Court held that Order 124 was valid in law, and the Commission had power to make it. The Court held that the Commission was not precluded bv the Stabilisation Regulations from paying waterfropt workers at a rate of remuneration above that provided by the Regulations.