CENTRALISATION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 65, 4 March 1929, Page 5

CENTRALISATION

SHIPPING AT MAIN PORTS SOME ILLUMINATING EXTRACTS DEPARTMENTAL AND OTHER RECORDS. In view of the misrepresentations now being made by the two Napier newspapers concerning the movement in known quarters to bring about centralisation of shipping at main ports, and of these two newspapers’ unjustifiable attacks on and abuse of the chairman of the Napier Harbour Board, to whom certainly the thanks of the district are due for his successful fighting of the movement at the recent conference of Associated Harbour Boards at Auckland, we publish hereunder extracts taken from official publications. These extracts’give a brief, accurate historic outline of the centralisation movement as far as records are available locally. The extracts from the annual reports of the conferences of the Associated Chambers of Commerce are included because without them the story or the attack on secondary ports would be incomplete, more especially so on account of the views expressed therein by Mr. J. B. Waters, and of his later appointment to be one of the three gentlemen who sat as a commission of inquiry into the affairs of the Napier Harbour. EARLIEST RECORDS AVAILABLE The earliest records available here of the movement for centralisation of shipping are contained in the reports of the annual conferences of tho Associated Chambers of Commerce. In the 1923 report (see page 31) Mr. J. B. Waters, of Dunedin, speaking in support of remit against the flat rate, said there were 19 ports in New Zealand for oversea steamers and several of these ought not to have been formed for another generation. At the 1921 conference (see page 41) a remit was carried urging “the engagement by the Government of a highly qualified engineer who shall consider and advise on all projected schemes of harbour construction." Mr. Mackrell said, “The remit did not go far enough. There should be a commission to advise whether the construction of any harbour was warranted.” At the 1925 conference it was reported (see 1925 report page 11) that Mr F. W. Furkert has been appointed engineer to the Marine Department. At the 1926 conference (see 1926 report page 15) Mr. A. H. Mackrell, in his presidential address said: “I believe the time is in fact approaching when the oversea transport to and from New Zealand will nave to be completely reorganised. The layout of our Dominion is unlike that of any other country of equal size and importance, and the present methods of large oversea freighters travelling from port to port around our coasts delivering and receiving cargo is an economic waste, and while it continues a reduction in the high freight rates on our inward and outward cargoes is well nigh impossible. Our sh pplng will have to be organised to provide for one or two clearing ports for the Dominion, the collection and distribution of inward and outward cargoes carried out by suitable coastal service run regularly and frequently to timetable to eqable the quickest possible and regular dispatch to both inward and outward cargoes. The construction and maintenance of dozens of ports to accommodate large oversea liners will not be necessary and each port of the Dominion will be served by similar and adequate oversea dnd coastal transport service. EXTRACTS FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. Marine Department's Annual Report, 1924 (H 15 page 3): “Harbours are also essential, in the first degree, for export from New Zealand of our products and receipt of goods from overseas. “They are equally necessary for dealing with transport between islands, and between places where no adequate or sufficiently economical means of transport exists. But they cease to justify [inclusion In the] essential category when constructed to provide for traffic which can be adequately provided for otherwise by publicly owned utilities (road and railway). It is unquestionable that increased freights are demanded by oversea shipping companies to compensate them for the expenditure involved in spending a very considerable period of time picking up cargo at several ports around the coast. It follows therefore that what is gained in one way is lost in others.” Railways Statement (D.2 1927) i “The fine terminal' facilities for giving quick dispatch to overseas vessels, which large scale business at the principal ports has justified the Harbour Boards concerned in supplying, is reacting on the attitude of shipping companies. These naturally appreciate the opportunities for expeditious terminal-port work, and are in consequence tending to concentrate their visits on the principal ports. As this movement develops further the railways will be required to undertake port-haulage for goods over much longer distances than at present, and a new development of haulage at special shipping rates may be expected as a corollary to the general trend of transport evolution.” N.Z. Railway Magazine: In the September issue of the N.Z. Railway Magazine which the Department issues as its official publication, the centralisation of shipping policy is crystallised in the following paragraphs. “The Local Bodies Loans Board (advocated years ago by Chambers of Commerce), is doing excellent work. The pity is that it'did not exist 15 years ago. What is the result of tho expenditure on roadsteads? It is high freights in respect of ail New Zealand produce, and high insurance rates, too. The ships must be compensated for the lost time and the risk involved in loading or waiting at open roadsteads, and good ports pay for the bad. for the flat rate applying to all ports is fixed with regard to the risks mentioned. “The second class norts take a big tol] of New Zealand and a general transport policy is required. It might pay the Dominion to load or discharge at central ports, and utilise road or rail transport or coastal steamers in conjunction therewith.

Kontiuued at foot next column i

The quicker ‘turn round’ of overseas vessels would of itself effect savings of considerable magnitude.” “These matters may fall a little outside of the purely railway purview, but are relevant and proper to consideration of a general transport policy, in which the railways are so vitally interested.” PUBLIC WORKS STATEMENT, 1928 (D.l Page 7.) “This is not the whole story either, because during the same period—from 1914 to 1927 —the loan indebtedness of the harbour authorities of New Zealand increased b.> two and threequarter millions, over one and a-half millions of which was spent on minor harbour, the goods from which could quite well have been carried on the railways.” COMMENT. Accepting the above extracts from Departmental reports as statements of Departmental policy for the elimination of secondary ports for overseas transport, qnd in view of the Marine Department's intervention in the affairs of the Napier- Harbour Board its setting up of the recent Royal Commission, its inclusion in the Commission’s personnel of a gentleman who is a pronounced main port advocate (Mr. J. B. Waters) ; also the appointment of two Government nominees on the Napier Harbour Board to supersede the two sitting members who were supporters of the scheme of harbour construction which was approved by an overwhelming majority of ratepayers in the harbour rating district, it is reasonable to assume that the port of Napier is included among those harbours the Marine Department classifies as “ceasing to justify [inclusion in the) essential category. Further comment appears in our leading columns to-day.