HARBOUR INQUIRY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 216, 26 August 1927, Page 5

HARBOUR INQUIRY

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

THE LIGHTERING INTERESTS MR McLEAY’S REPLIES TO ALLEGATIONS. The Commission inquiring into the affairs of the Napier harbour, port charges and reclamation continued its sittings at Napier this morning, Mr. J. S. Barton. S.M., of Wanganui, presided, and associated with him were Mr. A. C. McKenzie, harbum engineer, of Melbourne, and Mr. J B. Waters, merchant, of Dunedin. Mr. A. U Gray. K.C., of Welling ton. with Mr. M. R. Grant, appealed for the Napier Harbour Board, winio Mr. H. B. Lusk represented the Marine Department. Mr. Dudley Holmes. harboui engineer, was recalled and asked the following questions:— Mr. Barton: What is the price of the stone from Parke Island at pel cubic yard?—34/1 in place. What would be its weight?—A cubic yard of stone weighs 1.47 tons Does the price per yard include die cost of stripping ?—Yes, it includes

everything. Mr. Kenneth McLeay, managing director of Richardson and Co Ltd., was the next witness called. Mr. McLeay stated that during the last 20 years he had been connected with shipping. The reason why he was giving evidence was because of misstatements of previous witnesses which he said would possibly mislead the Commission and also cast a reflection on some of the business men in Napier. Mr. McLeay first referred to the evidence of Mr. Higgins dealing with the lighterage of artificial manures. He stated that he thought -he lighterage rate was 14/- to 15/- per ton, also that the lighterage was a great burden to the district. The rate was 10/- per ton, notwithstanding that labour had to be paid at an additional rate for the handling of this commodity. The company had to pay this extra cost. The bulk ot artificial manures were landed at the Breakwater. Mr. McLeay next referred to some remarks regarding the lighterage ot benzine, and the lightering of a motor car. When the company was upon to lighter benzine, it was, in nine times out of ten. when the vessel could not lie alongside the Breakwater, and was therefore done under unfavourable circumstances With motor cars he could not remember ever having to pay a claim for damage to motor cars landed in Nanier by lighterage. Mr. Higgins’ reference to stevedoring rate, said Mr McLeay, was absurd. He (Mr. Higgins) stated that the rate as charged here was reflected in the freight rates.. In reply, he would remind Mr. Higgins that Napier enjoyed a main port rate similar to goods to and from Auckland or Wellington. Mr. said that the same witness (Mr. Higgins) stated as a fact that the same company which did the lightering work in Napier carried nearly all the transhipment cargo to Napier, and that, in consequence of any alteration in Napier in regard to lignterage. the company would be considerably affected. In reply he could say that his company carried but very little of the transhipment cargo from Wellington or Auckland. They found difficulty in securing the freighting of transhipment which wag left to the Union Co.’s coastal vessels. The Union Steamship Co. was closely connected with the overseas carrying companies, whilst his company bad coastal boats only. EXCEPTION TAKEN TO SECRETARY’S ACTION. The next matter referred to by Mr. McLeay was (he correspondence which was submitted to the Commission of Mr Higgins which took place between the secretary of the Harbour Board and a Canadian shipping company. In one of the letters the secretary added a postscript saying that he was enclosing a list of shareholders in Richardson and Co. His company was the largest contributor to the board’s revenue. In 1926 it contributed £6554, and for 1927 £6662 17/7. . Mr, McLeay took exception to such a course being pursued by the secretary of the board. To him it was inconceivable that a list of his company’s shareholders should go forward to the Canadian shipping company in the endeavour to influence them to have a charge in their agency in Napier owing to the name of Murray Roberts appearing in big company’s list of shareholders. Mr. McLeay stated that a number of these lists had been distributed uy a member of the Harbour Board at the street corners in Napier. The same witness (Mr. Higgins) state! that lightering interests were very strong in Napier and they were combatting a deep sea harbour for overseas vessels, also that the lighterage company with overseas companies had the power to say whether a vessei would berth at the Breakwater or discharge in the roadstead. This was an untruth and credited him with more power than he possessed. Authority as to where vessels should work wa s dictated by the head offices of the respective shipping companies at Wellington. For a tun, the Canadian boats berthed at the Breakwater, then a change was made, and they were loading at the roadstead it being suggested that such a change had been done by lightering companies interested. In connection with this Mr McLeay stated that he had correspondence with the local agents for the Canadian firm after the change that they should again berth at the Breakwater, partly to avoid congestion with overseas vessels in the roadstead

Mr. McLeay then read correspondence between the Canadian Shipping Co. and its local agents in connection with reouests made by the latter for berthings to be made at the Breakwater in preference to discharging : n the roadstead. WOOL BROKERS’ INTERESTS. The next assertion made to the Commission in regard to lightering was that the mercantile firms in Napier were woolbrokers who were agents for overseas shipping and were interested in lightering. Will : am« and Kettle, Ltd. was the only c .mpanv apart from Murray Roberts whose shareholders were interested in Richardson and Co. Never once at a meeting of their hoard of directors had the harbour controversy been discussed. It was rather fortun.-rto that the woolbrokers have bad an interest tn lightering in Napier, and ir«‘—-t of sr-ti-g that

they were an evil influence they should be termed as benefactors to the district owing to their action in refusing to raise the lighterage rates some years ago when approached by an opposition firm which ran lighters. Because they refused to increase the lighterage the opposition company had to give up and his company Had to take over their lighters, which cost a good deal to put in repair. It could not be said that this movement was forced upon the opposition. The company had not any further work of their own as lightering was carried out by Dalgety and Co. and the Hawke’s Bay Farmers.

COULD GIVE BETTER DESPATCH THAN AT WELLINGTON.

Another question touched upon was to the effect that when a Scales Line vessel loaded at the Breakwater his company gave a rebate on the lightering to the vessels that were loading at the roadstead. Mr McLeay emphatically denied that his company were associated with such a procedure. He stated that his company received full lighterage rates, and did not give rebates while a bcales Line vessel was at the Break"dter - The contention was also held that less delays and beter despatch would result from vessels berthing at the Breakwater than working in the roadstead. Mr McLeay then put in a return showing the loading and unloading times of vessels that had worked in the roadstead. He wished to dispose of the statement that loading was done quicker alongside th e wharf than <n the roadstead. The returns were typical illustrations of the loading, being governed by the type of vessel, number of hatches, number of vessels in the bay. and by weather conditions. Given the same number <f hatches to work, they could give better despatch than could be niven at either Auckland or Wellington. The reason why they were able to give better despatch was because Ihe lightering plant had been added to and notwithstanding the possibility that in a short perio’ there would ie no further need for lighters at the port. THE ONLY HAVEN The last statement which he desired to refer to was that given Bv the same witness (Mr Higgins) that he (Mr McLeay) was a member of the Inner Harbour League. To that he would plead guilty, and in referring to the statement made bv the same witness that ins company was responsible for keeping the league going for the last seven years, he said they had only contributed the sum of £25 during that neriod. I'he Inner Harbour, to which his company’s vessels and lighters worked, nad been everything. ft wa s the only haven which their shipping could rely upon. Without it they could not have built up the services that they now had. He could not understand Captain Chudlev stating that the lighterage plant was out of d “ te t Me would like to sav that l he heads of the overseas companies m Wellington were closely associated in shipping matters, and it occasionally occurred during the wool season that the- sent four or five vessels to toad on prompt davs and his company got to the limit of what could oe done even if thev had the labour and double the lighters, because thev could only load from five stores, being also restricted in meat -angs. Such a congestion would not occur more than three times a vear. For working adequately four vessels was really the limit. The men encased were fairly regular hands, being almost permanent casuals. The company had five vessels that were exclusively coastal vessels. There were fourteen used as lighters, six of which were used on the coast as well. In addition, there was the Tangaroa. which was used in the Wairoa trade, MAXIMUM LOADING. Mr Barton: What is your maximum loading for overseas vessels?—

We nave been working five when we had less lighters than we have now Mr Waters: Could you give four overseas vessels reasonable despatch? -Yes.

Mr Grant: How often during the year would you be called upon to give despatch to four vessels?— About four or five times. Mr Marton: If working four vessels how many hatches would vou work?—The maximum number would be seven, Workir the gang per natch the Rotorua, in 12 hours loaded 4500 bales of wool.

Mr Grant: What is the average number of vessels that vou are called upon to work? —That I could not sav. as there are many days on which there are no boats at all.

Mr Barton; If there were four boats here, how long would the first one stay?—That all depends. It might be working inward cargo. I don’t think two berths would be sufficient, and they would not eliminate lightering. There would be considerable delay. This waiting would have a bad effect and would give a fillip to centralisation. If differential rates for ports were adopted it would nos give Napier a claim to the same basis that Wellington and Auckland were on.

Mr Grant: Do vou think that if there were only two berths the shipping companies could arrange the arrivals in order to avoid clashing?— Thev might attempt it but there would be difficulties. Such an arrangement could not be made as far as wool boats were concerned. Occasional!” now a boat might be diverted to Gisborne to meet temporary labour conditions. Mr Barton: What accommodation had you in view when vou pictured a harbour —Four berr „ It has not been so much a quc...on of two berths or four berths but an Inner versus Outer Harbour. In mv opinion four berths would be necessav.

When did you hear the suggestion of a two-berth harbour first put forward?—During the proceedings of the Commission. , Mr Grant: Do vou thirjk that tne present Breakwater wharf with deepening could be made available for vessels loading wool in the bay?—No.

Assumng the Breakwater was completed. what berthage accommodation would be required for coastal and coal trade? —The whole of the existing accommodation.

When you speak of. four berths what do vou expect to get at the Breakwater?—Four additional to present accommodation. To Mr Barton: In addition to the present accommodation at the Inner Harbour and the present accommodation at the Breakwater four berths extra would be necessary Mr Barton: We have been here three weeks and have not seen more than one boat there at a time?—This is a very slack time. Mr Grant: Do you consider it good policy for the board to build four overseas berths when they would all be required only for a few days during the year?—lt would he an unfortunate position for the board but

advisable to carry out in order that the port should enjoy the low rates existing at main ports. These are questions which should be put to those who would have to face them. Mr. Barton: With two berths it would still mean lightering?—lt had to be remembered that the company could not maintain lighters just to work on occasional days. The board could have lighters and work them spasmodically. Mr. Grant: All these huge profits we hear of would then go to the Harbour Board?—Yes, they would be welcome to them.

LIGHTERAGE REVENUE. Continuing, Mr. McLeay put in a return of the revenue derived from lighterage for the year ending March 31, 1927, mqde up of inward general cargo and outward cargo of meat and wool, making a total of £30,350. The average charge on a freight carcase was 5.22 d. There were 89,535 bales of wool lightered, which included wool brought by sea from outside the harbour rating district, 38,211 bales. The next return dealt with the rates charged for lighterage at Napier as compared with those charged at Wanganui, Gisborne and other roadstead ports. At Napier the rate lor wool was 1/9 per bale, the rate of lighterage tor wool at Wanganui was 2/9 per bale, and at Gisborne 2/1. Tallow and pelts were 10/- at Napier, 8/6 at Wanganui and 12/6 at Gisborne. General cargo at Napier was 12/-, at Gisborne 12/6. Frozen meat rates; Napier, 1.13 d per lb., plus 8 per cent, tor beef, mutton and lamb; Wanganui, 4jd per carcase for mutton, 3jd for lamb, 1/1 per quarter for beef; Gisborne, 5d per carease of mutton, 4d for lamb and 1/1 per quarter for beef. A comparison of the rates for freight carcases between the three ports were as follows :— Napier 4.98 d, Gisborne 5.45 d, and Wanganui 5.31 d. Lamb rates were: Napier 4,98 d, Gisborne 7.5 d, Wanganui 6.56 d. Beef: Napier 4.98 d, Gisborne 5.57 d, and Wanganui 5.57 d. Mr. McLeay said that it might be thought that the rates were lower at Napier because there was a greater volume of lighterage but that was not so. In Gisborne there was a total of 53,695 tons for the year ending March 31, 1927, while at Napier it was 49,844 tons. The Gisborne rates which he had set out were those which the lightering company there credited to their own lighters lor ser give. The lighterage at Napier did not constitute one-seventh of the company’s business, but it represented 50 per cent, of their troubles and he would not be sorry when that part of the business was no longer needed.

HOPED CONTROVERSY WOULD END.

He hoped that the decision of the Commission would end the board con troversy. They would be quite willing to scrap tneir lighterage plant, and the only thing that they lioped for was a safe haven for shipping. Mr McLeay then referred to the charges that the company had to pay at Napier and put in a return of the charges imposed at Wanganui and Gisborne for similar work during 1926. The total was as follows:— Showing £1546 16s 3d in the way of charges paid to tho Napier Harbour Board. At Gisborne for similar work the amount would be £251 15s, at Waganui £673 4s lUd. These charges, ho said, were based on those in operation as from July 1, 1927. In this return, he said, they had contributed £1397 Os 3d more than at Gisborne and £93 Ils 5d more than than at Wanganui. In a further return it was show they had to pay £206 16s 6d as shifting fees in connection with lighterage fleet. This amount included that for the coastal vessels which was difficult to dissect, but a fair allowance for the lighters would be £lOO. The lighter Fanny which did 194 trips, showed a loss of £97 without takinng into account any of tho overhead expenses. It would be seen that the lighterage rates charged at Napier were less than charged at other ports, while the charges were much higher. The credit for this state of affairs he thought was due to the fact that the wool brokers were interested in lighterage. In a return of wharfages McLeay stated that for the year 1925-26 the Napier Harbour Board collected £14,330, Gisborne £10,884 and Wanganui £5OBO. This, he said, was a typical illustration of the revenue required to maintain two liarbotfrs. They had had a good deal to contend with in respect to their heavy charges, but he though that there was a need for analysis to be made of the heavy charges made by the Harbour Board. He said that it had beein claimed that the reuuctiou in the berthage rates on small vessels bad been unfair because tin increase had ben placed on larger vessels. He had compiled for a small vessel like the Pakura affistof the charges based on the 3d per ton berthage at Napier and assuming that the vessel was in port two days there would be acharge of £8 4s Id. At Wellington it would be £2 Is 4d, Auckland £1 16s lid, and Lyttelton £2 lbs lid. Under the old charge of 7d per ton berthage lire amount, 1 charged at Napier would bo £l2 9s Id. The present arbitrary rate of three dollars per ton operating on cargo from the Pacific coast was similar to tho rate applying to New Plymouth, Wanganui, Timaru and Oamaru. It was additional to tho rates cnarged at main ports. If lightering was incurred in landing that cargo at Naptbr it would be in addition to the three dollars.

BETTER. FACILITIES. It was an additional charge probably because of the small amount for the port. At the Inner Harbour the facilities enabled a better dispatch to be made than at the Breakwater. A good deal of waiting time occurred at the Breakwater through time taken in shunting trucks, although he considered that the facilities there were insufficient to give reasonable dispatch. His company had worked vessels there and returns showed that the waiting time had been as much as four hours a day. EFFECT OF SALT WATER. When the Commission resumed this afternoon the evidence by Mr. McLeay was interrupted by the calling of the evidence of Mr ,1. McDonald, of Meeance, as to the effect of salt upon lands. Besides first class land he was farming 150 acres of lands effected bv salt.

Mr Barton :Ts it possible to convert this into rood arable lands. Mr. McDonald: Well, our first class land produces rvc grass which com-, -lands the highest prices in New Zealand. Tho salt water land wo have given tlyo best agricultural treatment, and it is not a bit better than it was 30 years ago. Ploughing and

sowing was really throwing money away. We have put far more money into it than ever we have taken out of it. the only method ot getting rid of the salt would be to iiood it from the river. We have tried flooding from artesian wells but that was very slow. Mashing by fresh water was the only metnod of dealing with it, but to do any good the area would need the river flooding over it. Much of it was 2ft above the tidal level and water never lay on it. To lease McDonald swamp on its own, even if it was dewatered, would not be worth having, but ir you had some good land to work with it it might be worth 5/- per acre to lease it. Generally speaking 1 would not place any value on it. The only way is to raise the level of flooding or pumping, 2ft or river silt would convert it into good land. Silt pumped from areas covered by salt water would never be much good for farming although it might make good building sites.

Regarding drainage, witness said it was not a good idea to drain the fresh water away, but the more fresh water that could bo put over it tht better- Some years ago he urged draining it, but abandoned it as no improvements resulted.

Mr. Barton : How much of McDonald swamp is affected by salt water?—The whole of it. At the present time there is 18 inches ot water. With regard to the Richmond block, (hat had a better chance as it was flooded occasionally. Should the river be totally diverted it would soon not be worth its present-day value for grazing purposes. I Yesterday afternoon’s proceedings "-“I found on page ".)