Harbour Commission

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 202, 10 August 1927, Page 5

Harbour Commission

To-day’s Proceedings. MR. HIGGINS' EVIDENCE. FREIGHTS 4 BILLS OF LADING. The Napier Harbour Commission resumed its sitting at Napier this morning, Mr J. S .Barton, S.M., ol Wanganui, presiding. Associateu with him were Messrs. A. C. McKenzie, harbour engineer, oi Melbourne, and J- B. Waters, merchant, of Dunedin. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., of Wellington, with Air. M. 11. Grant, of Napier, appeared for the Napier Harbour Board, while Mr. H. B. Lusk, of Napier, represented the Marine Department. Resuming his evidence-in-chief this morning Patrick F. Higgins, a member of the Harbour Board dealt with the freights. He said that the arbitrary rate, plus the lighterage, amounted to about 15 per cent, of the total value of the goods, showing the disadvantage suffered by importers at this port. Witness stated that bills of lading put in showed that in the first instance they were made to Napier, then to the Hawke’s Bay anchorage. Further, there was a rubber stamp condition overriding the previous directions as to destination. The goods were landed at the Breakwater, no lighterage was incurred, and no rebate was given for the arbitrary rate. Mr. Barton: What was the amount of the arbitrary rate?—l think three dollars a ton. Mr. Higgins then put in copies oi correspondence between the Tourist Motor Co., Ltd., and the Napier Harbour Board referring to the arbitrary rate charged on motor cars landed at the Breakwater, for which, as no lighterage was incurred, a rebate was asked tor. The amount involved in the complaint was £llB Os Od as arbitrary charge concerning thirteen automobiles and one case oi parts. Witness then read lengthy correspondence that took place between the above-mentioned company and the Napier Harbour Board. Mr. Barton: There is nothing in the correspondence stating “You will please find enclosed a cheque for £l2O the amount of refund?” NOT LIKELY. Mr. Lusk: You are not likely to get that from America. Mr. Higgins: 1 know of similar instances where refunds have been given, but for trade and other reasons the information was not able to he given to the Commission. The chairman: It seems to me that where it has been abolished a corresponding increase has been made in the freights. Mr. Higgins said he understood that the rate had been abolished on vessels from Atlantic ports of America, but not from the Pacific ports. Witness then put in copies of correspondence between the Napier Harbour Board and the Canadian Merchant Marine Shipping Company in connection with a vessel of tuat fine which berthed at the breakwater and tor some unknown reason wept into the roaustead to complete disciiarge. Tfie object ot toe coriespunueuce was to encourage vessels to tne breadwater so as to save consignees the cost oi lighterage, wfucn was io/- per ton on on cargo, tne only set off Doing a charge or fid, leaving a nett saving of n, 3 per ton. lu one oi the fetters written by the secretary ot the Harbour Board was a postscript setting out the list of snareholders in Richardson and Co. Mr. Barton: What is the purport oi the postscr^it?—l think it has a bearing. Murray, Roberts and Co. were the agents lor Uie shipping company. Mr. Barton: Has anything happened since that correspondence was received ? Mr. Higgins: The vessels still berth in the roadstead. Continuing, witness said that it all went to show that there were lightering interests that were combating overseas shipping. The inference was that the question of whether a vessel shall berth at the Breakwater or in the Roadstead was in the hands of those interested in the lighterage charges or was interested in them to the detriment of the consignees and the public generally. Mr. Barton: Who are the local agents for the Canadian line of steamers to which the correspondence relates ?—Murray, Roberts and Co. Mr. Barton: Who are the owners of the lighters?—l will attempt to answer that. Williams and Kettle are on the share list. Mr. Gray: Who runs the lightering company?—Richardson and Co. BUSINESSES INTERWOVEN. Continuing, witness said that in respect to the wool trade the mercantile firms of the district were the wool brokers, the overseas shipping agents and in some instances were largely interested in the lightering company. It would be seen that the businesses were interwoven and it was a singular coincidence that they were all supporters of the Inner Harbour policy, which policy, he believed, was- for the renewing of works and securing that port for its trade and also in increasing the debt of the board to such an extent that it would prevent for a long time the development of a deep water harbour. There was an Inner Harbour League, prominent members of which were interested in lightering. At the elections this league spent large sums of money in propaganda that was directeed against the Breakwater. Mr. Barton: Would not a successful Inner Harbour also end the question of lighterage?—Yes. Witness, continuing, said that if the policy he referred to was successful it would mean that all the loan moneys would be spent on existing facilities and renewal of same, leaving the board faced with the necessity of lightering overseas vessels. In the system of rebates operating the lightering company or shipping interests and other interests in the district were made be said to be in the swim.

Mr. Barton: Can you give me an example. Witness: What I have is in confidence Mr. McLeay or Mr. Cato may know. The Scales Shipping Co. is the only companv that works the Breakwater for woo) and in order to kill that trade at the Breakwater rebates on the lighterage of wool were made by the shipping companies. This had also operated in regard to tallow. There would be less delays and more expeditious despatches and considerable saving if railway cars and vehicles could be taken on to the

wharves. It was notorious that a considerable portion of the board’s revenue had for many years been swallowed up in the maintenance of old and dilapidated works. When these were renewed with permanent material the maintenance would be greatly reduced. In his opinion one additional wharf with two berths would meet the pressing needs in the maintenance for a meat wharf. It had been shown that the trade of the port justified the provision of up-to-date facilities and although trade relations of Southern Hawke’s Bay might be partly associated with other ports he was of the opinion that eventually with the natural advantages that the port of Napier would offer would attract that trade and that the business of Napier and Hastings Would be able to compete further afield.

To the chairman, witness said that in addition to the extra wharf it was suggested that the Inner Harbour should be maintained for its present trade. There were occasions when there were four overseas vessels in the bay during the wool season There might be the necessity in a small degree for lightering, but if the Glasgow wharf were clear there would be four berths able to take overseas vessels at the Breakwater. BERTHAGE RATES. Concerning berthage rates, witness stated that the effect of, the amendment had been to increase the amount paid bv vessels at the Breakwater and reduce the am. mt paid in the Inner Harbour. It had been shown that the increase on larger vessels was up to 400 per cent. The first suggestion made by the chairman to increase the rate was to obtain 3d per ton on all cargo handled from the ships to the Breakwater as a contribution towards the cost of additional services given bv the board at the Breakwater. This by-law was disallowed by the Department, as the charge for labour was being made on the ship. Subsequently an amendment was made eliminating the existing differentiation of berthage rates and equalising the berthage charges on all vessels, irrespective of w’here they berthed. POLICY OF THE BOARD. The policy of the board, said witness, had been to iive some encouragement to vessels of large tonnage and comparative!;- small cargoes to work the Breakw-ater. The recent amendment had reversed this policy, and it was feared that the vessels would be driven into the roadstead, or there would be a consequent increase in freights. Those members of the board who opposed this amendment instanced Wanganui, where differential rates operated: Under 12,000 tons 2d the first dav and Id for every other day: over 12,000 tons. 2d for the first dav and a halfpenny for every other day The berthage rates ruling at Auckland were lid per day per ton register; at Wellington, a halfpenny per day; At Timaru, one penny per dav; and it was thought that the increased rate at Napier was an unfair penalty on the big vessels working at the Breakwater. It was proposed by members of the board who opposed the new rates that the berthage rates should be assessed as was done at New Plymouth on the cargo handled—3d per ton in the case of lighters which average 60 tons register, and 3d per ton per t<ip berthage amounted to 15s These vessels averaged 100 tons of cargo, so that the new rate would only be costing 1 4-5 d per ton for cargo carried. Small vessels of 400 tons at 3d per ton would pay £5 for a stay of one day and one carrying 400 tons of cargo awould par 3d per ton of cargo. Big vessels of the Waihmo class of 5540 tons, for a stay of five days would pav £lO3 5s berthage, against £22 2s 2d at the old rate, and those handling 250 tons of cargo would pay lljd per ton of cargo. This showed the penalty which was being made on the large class of vessels. Mr Barton: A vessel of 3000 tons at 3d per ton, staying one day. would pay £37 10s. and if she landed 100 tons would pay Is 10id per ton. CERTAIN DISABILITIES. Continuing, witness said that it was usual that the 'smaller class of vessel working the port carried a full cargo, whereas the larger vessel carried a smaller proportion to its tonnage. It was the usual practice in most harbours to levy a uniform charge of wharfage over the whole of its harbour regardless of the service given or the conveniences offering. Admittedly there were certain disabilities in the handling of mods on the Breakwater wharf if the board carried out such improvements as would permit the access of vehicles and storage accommodation. It seemed that the board, in not providing such was saving interest thereon and penalising consignees because of the absence of facilities. DREDGING QUESTION. In regard to dredging witness had put in copies of the monthly soundings of the Inner Harbour channel taken during various months in 1924 and in 1926, also of January to June of this year. These, he said, showed a shoal patch between the piers which moved up and down from the Iron Pot to the entrance. Soundings on this patch determined the navigable depth of the harbour, which averaged between 15 and 16 feet. It was on this patch that the J.D.O. spent a good deal of its time. Witness then put in a copy of the harbourmaster’s reply to the board in connection with the accumulation. At the chairman’s suggestion this matter was deferred until the harbourmaster was called. Refering to the supply of stone for harbour construction, witness stated that the stone used in the foundation of the Breakwater was mostly obtained from the Bluff, there being no reason to think that this supply of stone was not suitable to-day for the same purposes. Large supplies were needed by the board for its various works. In connection with the obtaining of stone for the Breakwater, about 40 acres were reclaimed with debris at the port. The debris from such quarrying, instead of being a liability, became an asset. In the event of the Breakwater being gone on with, he saw no reason why the process of obtaining stone and debris could not be gone on with as before.

The chairman: Who is the owner of the Bluff?

Mr. Jull explained that it was a lighthouse reserve. In the past the board had obtain**! supplies from there without paying royalty.

Witness then put in a return showing quarrying costs at the Bluff Hill and Burns’ road, which he said spoke for itself. It was shown that as

against purchasing stone from outside sources, that if the board carried out its own quarrying, stone could be won and reclamation carried out at a trifling cost.

RECLAMATION. Reclamation at the Inner Harbour, said witness, was limited by Messrs. Cullen and Keele to 149 acres in their 1912 report. In 1920 it was proposed to reclaim 133 acres at the Inner Harbour. In the 1926 reclamation bill it was proposed to reclaim 73 acres Taking that area it was likely that the Railway Department would require 15 acres for a railway yard. The Borough Council proposed to acquire 10 acres for a park, and the Education Board 5 acres, which totalled 30 acres, leaving 43 acres for subdivision. After allowing for reading 34 acres were left for leasing. Taking 10 acres at £2OOO per acre at 5 per cent, a return of £lOOO would result. The commission at this stage adjourned for lunch. Continuing his evidence after lunch, Mr. Higgins said the remaining 24 acres at £l5O per one-sixth acre allotment, or £9OO per acre, at 5 per cent, would return £lOBO. This amount for £lOOO for the 10 acres would return £2OBO per annum plus the interest on the 15 acres sold to the Borough Council and Education Board, valued at £750 per acre at 5 per cent., which would return £525 per annum. This would give a total amount of £2605. To be deducted from this amount would be the interest and cost of subdivision. Assuming that the value of the residential sites to be at the rate of £l4OO per acre the 24 acres would return £l6BO. This would increase the former estimate for residential sites by £615; instead of the £2605 it would be £3240 per annum Mr. Barton: You assume that the cost of reclamaion would be about £750 per acre?—Yes. Continuing, witness said that the revenue from the reclaimed areas would fall short of the interest of the amount expended on the Inner Harbour. MR. JULL’S EVIDENCE. COMMISSION ORDERS CORRECTION OF WORDS. Prior to the Commission proceeding with the hearing of evidence this morning, Mr. Gray, counsel tor the Harbour Board, made reference to a paragraph appearing in another newspaper column yesterday with regard to Mr. Jull’s evidence. “It was,” said Mr. Gray, “not likely to affect the Commission, but might cause people who were not present to gain a wrong impression.” “Mr Jull,” he said, “was asked by Mr Lusk if the board had taken steps to have the borings taken by Mr Pengelly checked, when he replied that the gear or plant was taken away.” Mr. Lusk: That is perfectly correct.

Mr. Gray: Well, the newspaper report states the answer to be “We threw the gear away.” The chairman agreed that Mr Jull’s answer was as stated by Mr. Gray and directed that correction be made.