A SLASHING REPLY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 83, 26 March 1929, Page 6

A SLASHING REPLY

Harbour Board Chairman’s Speech

Public Meeting in Napier

Vigorous Censure of Local Press

To a very large audience in the Municipal Theatre, Napier, last night, Mr. A. Ek Jull, chairman of the Napier Harbour Board, warmly defending the policy of the board, outlined at length his suggested proposals for a progressive policy of improvement and development at the Inner Harbour for the accommodarion of overseas vessels which, he stated, could be carried on out of revenue and without the necessity of levying rates on property. Mr. Jull, during his able address, made a slashing reply to the unjustified attacks made upon him by rhe Napier Press, and the audience were given the, opportunity of learning the facts concerning harbour affairs without having them distored or misrepresented. The meeting was most sympathetic and showed its appreciation by frequent applause.

land and Lyttelton combined. There was no doubt that centralisation would be detrimental in the highest degree to the producers of this district and to. mercantile people generally.. AN ILLUSTRATION.

Mr. W. E. Barnard, M.P., who presided, stated that he was doing so as representative for the electorate, which was slightly larger than the town of Napier, and he hoped that the Mayor (Mr. J. Vigor Brown) would not consider it as a slight that he should occupy the chair on such an important occasion. I “My reading of the Napier Press I shows that I am evidently not popular among the Napier people,’’ said Mr. Jull, who was enthusiastically received. “It reminds me of a remark made by the Bishop of London, who said that he liked to be unpopular, because he then knew that he was right.” (Laughter.) A BIASSED PRESS. “If there is one suoject that the people of tne town must be tired of it is that concerning harbour affairs. I am sure that you are all here with an earnest desire to hear what may be said bv the most assailed individual in Hawke’s Bay. I would say that if either of the Napier papers approved of anything that I did. 1 would immediately look into it to see where it was wrong. (Laughter.) “Whatever views the people, of Napier have on the harbour question, they are only able to form them on what they read in their papers. The Napier Press is determined to give you only what they think is good for you. When there is anything that doesn’t agree with their way of thinking they won’t publish it, so it can be seen that it is needful for someone engaged in harbour administration to come along occasionally and endeavour to correct many of the misstatements that have been made.

DIFFICULTIES OF UNDER.

STANDING,

“To illustrate the difficulties that the people have in arriving at a true opinion on harbour affairs from what they read in their papers, I would like to give as an illustration that when I wa 8 in Wellington recently the Secretary for Marine showed me a paragraph which had appeared in a Napier paper headed ‘A Movable Bottom.’ The paragraph stated that the Turakina had lost her anchor in the Roadstead during a storm and a few days later it was alleged to have been found silted over to a depth or six feet, showing the movable nature of the bottom of the Roadstead. I might say that when this paper has any of these spicy pieces the paperboy doesn’t leave a paper at my gate. (Laughter.) I thought that this was important, and I instructed the harbourmaster to take soundings 1000 feet east to west and north to south in; the area where the anchor was recovered. After many weeks of soundings there was only one set of figures (40 feet) on the chart which showed that the bottom of the Roadstead was as level as a table.

SUPPRESSION OF NEWS.

“This will give some idea of the sort of information the Napier Press is supplying. At the February meeting of the board I presented in the ordinary course of business a short report in which I spoke of the disloyalty of the Napier Press. When the morning paper came next day there was a blank, and it was the same with its evening contemporary. The latter, however, a few days later, under the familiar heading ‘Complete the Breakwater,’ and following about a column of their own opinions, put in my report, to which they added more about completing the Breakwater. My report was so sandwiched in that probably not one-tenth of the people of Napier knew that it was ever included. (Laughter.)

SHIPPING CENTRALISATION.

“The next little matter is an allegation by the ‘Herald’ to the effect that I made a statement that the Government was in favour of centralisation of shipping, which, I might say, was quite contrary to what I did say. The board took exception to it and passed a resolution which was forwarded both to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine, who had been advised of the allegation, setting out the true position.” (Applause.) Dealing with the question of centralisation, Mr. Jull stated that at the last Harbours Conference held in Auckland the board brought forward a remit to the effect that centralisation was not in the best interests of the Dominion and that it should not be encouraged. The board took up the cudgels on behalf of the ports that were likely to suffer as the result of centralisation. The centralisers, he stated, were hiding under the cloak of the abolition of the flat rate of freight on the exports of the country. Their idea was that the products could more profitably be railed to Wellington or Auckland or sent on a coastal vessel and then shipped from a central port.

DANGERS OF PROPOSAL

• In New South Wales Mr. Jull stated that last year more than half the wool was carried in foreign vessels, one Norwegian line carrying 70,000 bales. In regard to frozen produce, there were four Britishowned refrigerated lines which were more costly to build than the foreign tramps. If frozen meat was to be centralised it would be an invitation to other lines to come along and pick up the wool. If the British vessels were not able to make up their freights, they would require to raise the freight on frozen meat to make up for that lost on the carriage of other produce. The Harbours Conference almost unanimously opposed centralisation. All the small purts, as well as some of the larger ones, supported the board in its remit. In addition, the Government had stated that it was not in favour of centralisation.

Napier was the second port in the Dominion for the export of wool, being almost equal to that of Auck-

ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT

LIGHTERAGE.

Mr. Jull in tracing the origin of the movement for centralisation stated it was at a conference of the Associated' Chambers of Commerce held in 1923 tlnat Mr. J. B. Waters—afterwards one of the members of the Royal Commission which sat in Napier—took up the stand in favour of centralisation, 'lhe next intimation of centralisation was in a report by the Secretary of Marine which deprecated the development of subsidiary ports to handle the produce grown m the districts served by them. The Department hi;d got in nice and early with the report, a copy of which was handed to the Commission, it being stated that the policy outlined had the approval of the Minister of Marine. The Railway Department later brought forward a statement that a new development in haulage might be expected that would favour the main ports. This would further increase the losses ori the railways in order to support the main ports of the Dominion, a most undesirable state of affairs. “Fortunately,” said Mr. Jull, “that move has been well and truly scotched. The statement that I made that centralisation is as dead as Caesar is well merited.. At the meeting of the Wellington Harbour Board a few days ago an effort was made to revive it when certain members were twitted and asked why they did not make a reply when given an opportunity to do so in Auckland.

tention drawn by the freezing companies to tho charges being higher than those at competitive ports and asked if some facilities could be provided to enable wharf loading. As a result the shipping companies were asked as to why they were not loading meat at the Breakwater and making use of the facilities there. The reply was that in view of the opinion of navigation experts at the Commission, and further in view of the fact that the proposal for improvements had been delayed, it was hest that the matter should be deferred for a time until the harbour question was cleared up. The board, added Mr. Jull, had asked for a more specific reply from the shipping companies. It was the honest desire of the members of the board that since a good deal of money had been spent in facilities, they should be made use of uo matter where they were.

Sir George Buchanan in his recent report on shipping in Australia had stated that the export of produce should be made as near as possible to the district in which it was produced in order to encourage a natural development. Any surreptitious method revolutionising the carrying of produce was detrimental to the people who had built a harbour unassisted by the Government and who were entitled to say where their produce was to be shipped from..

Quite recently the wharfinger had made a comparative statement of shipping charges at Wellington and at Napier in regard to the handling of meat from the three local freezing works, which showed that after allowing for the special concession on the railways there was a saving of £1 per ton by handling through Napier even after paying for the lighterage. At Wellington there was no provision for the reconditioning of meat in cases of delay in shipping. The board, said Mr. Jull, had in every way been friendly to the freezing companies and he had urged that wharfage on meat should be deduced as soon as possible.

Continuing. Mr. Jull said that the Napier evening paper on Friday last had climbed down from its cry of “Finish the Breakwater”, and had made a suggestion that instead of completing the Breakwater an amount should be spent on improving it. ‘They have been doing a bit of figuring on their own account,” he said, amid laughter. “They say that for £250,000 the necessary work could be done to enable the vessels to go alongside and take in their cargoes. The interest bill W'ould be £18,500. And they say that lighterage would be eliminated. Wonderful isn’t it?” (Laughter). “It is a most outrageous statement to make to say that the board would save the lighterage. The board doesn’t receive it now. It is not s,hown in the board’s books. The vessels would pay berthage rate when they came alongside, but the 1 board would lose berthage paid by the small vessels which worked the port. To say that the board would save the cost of lighterage is nonsense. ' * “For weeks past that paper has been publishing articles entitled ‘Complete the Breakwater,’ and putting in pictures of vessels unloading at its wharf, and now it comes down to a ‘half-pie’ Breakwater (Laughter), calmly suggesting that all the benefits of a completed harbour would be afforded by it. The board has no word from the shipping companies that their vessels would work such a harbour. It has to be remembered that if lighterage costs £30,000, it is all being spent in Napier. All the products come from the country so it is the country which pays while Napier gets,all the cream. (Laughter).

COMPARATIVE SHIPPING CHARGES.

Dealing with the question of lighterage, Mr. Jull stated that evidence given at the, Commission alleged that £130,000 was spent annually in the lightering of goods at Napier. He agreed that any means by which lighterage charges could be reduced should be given* effect to. In the case of about 90 per cent, of the wool sold at Napier and shipped, the lighterage was paid for by the wool buyers. It was quite possible that even if wool could be shipped at the Breakwater it would be preferred to load in the roadstead, especially when Napier was the last port of call. He quoted as a concrete example how a big saving could be effected by a policy of shipping through the roadstead, wool by this means being able to arrive in England probably a month earlier, thus saving interest charges which would he considerably heavier than those for lighterage.

A CLIMB DOWN

Tn connection with the handling ot frozen meat the freezing companies did the shipping and paid the lighterage. The board had been twitted for not assisting the three freezing companies. It was only 18 months ago that a committee of the board met. the companies in regard to complaints about lighterage. The lighterage company stated that they were paying an undue berthage rate of 7d per ton per trip out into the roadstead, and said that if any reduction could be made it would be passed on to the freezing companies. Subsequently, a readjustment of berthage rates was made which was passed on to tho freezing companies. When the proposals came forward, both the Napier papers tried to prevent the board from giving effect to the now rates which would relieve the charges for the lightering of meat. The board had had their at-

TEE COMMISSION’S OPINION.

WHARFAGE RATES.

MISLEADING STATEMENTS.

“Have you ever heard of the Inner Harbour? Do you know where it is, or do you take the Napier evening paper as an authority that it doesn’t exist?” asked Mr Jull amid loud laughter Mr Jull took his audience back to the 'Bo’s, pointing out the inadequate facilities that then existed. He told of how there were no sheds and how goods had to be thrown on to. the wharf and sorted out by the carriers as well at it could be done. The board had now rebuilt the quays at the Inner Harbour n 1 nut - sheds which did not yet, However, meet the requirements of the pert.

“I have said that the Commission’s report is like the curate’s egg, good in spots,” said Mr. Jull. “The Commission says that the Breakwater offers a feasible method of ’affording a reasonably good harbour, but it also says that it would have its limitations and could not be worked in stormy weather. They say that there would be times when bad weather would so develop that shipmasters would be glad to gef out. Si even in the opinion of the Commission this harbour does not fulfil the definition of a harbour according, to Webster’s dictionary of being ‘a place of refuge in time of storm.’ They sav that it is a place to get out of (Laughter). As to the justification of a breakwater harbour from an economic point of yiew they say that there is none.. I notice that of late the Commission has been abundantly quoted by the Napier press ; but these two quotations have been left out (Laughter). “With cement at 30/- a yard and the removal of spoil at the Breakwater at 1/3 pen yard the Commission, in spite of these extremely low rates, say that the annual cost would be £48,500 or about 10J per cent, of the total cost. Personally, I think that this is a bit high and may be reduced to £40,000. The board could find £4.000 out of its revenue, leaving £.36,000 to be made up. which was about equal to the wharfage. In order to raise this amount, it wool] probably be necessary to raise the wharfage by doubling it br even trebling it.

Mr Jull then referred to a statement brought before the hoard two months ago, comparing the go handled at the Breakwater and at the . Inner Harbour. Some cf the members stated that it did not go far enough, and when it was piesentsd at the last meeting containing 'he information sought, the same irrnibers seemed very disturbed about it. They desired that it should no referred back to a committee to make it more comprehensive, which, really meant that they fervently desi-od *u bury it until after the election. (Loud laughter.) Mr Jull pointed out that the report, which covered a period of four months, showed that 56,000 tons was handled at the Inner Harbour as against 28.000 tons at the. Breakwater. Tho return certainly included two good months for wool, but excluding that. 33.000 tons of general cargo were handled at the Inner Harbour. The accommodation was not sufficient, and it was desirable that it should be improved both nt the Inner Harbour and at the Breakwater. The revenue received at the Tnnei Harbour for this period was £11.940 and the expenditure £746. leaving a nett revenue of £11,197. At the Breakwater the revenue totalled £9076 and the expenditure £SSSL leaving a nett return of £32’5. People, he said, were stating that the Breakwater was the standby of Napier, but it had to he remembered that it was really being carried by the people who had to pay for then goods to be handled at the Inner Harbour. Between the board and tne consignees about £4500 was being lost in handling cargo at the Breakwater. It was rather singular, he said, that the ships which had to pay for labour a-t the Inner Harbour still preferred to work there. In order to provide further facilities at the Inner Harbour for the handling of cargo the board had negotiated for the purchase of a property at the corner of West Quay. The price asked for was £20.000 and he had been unable to recommend the board to pursue the matter on that basis.

THE INNER HARBOUR

“The more we raise the wharfage rates the more we cut off the possibility of southern districts sending their produce to Napier. We need to be careful not to impose charges that are going to have a serious effect upon the prosperity of the district. When the Breakwater was commenced people were asked to sign a promissory note for half a million sterling. They were told that there was little possibility of a rate being collected and that it was required only for tho obtaining of better terms. Loans amounting to £500,000 had been raised for the Breakwater, while the ratepayers had paid £515,000 in rates, but in spite of that £265,000 was still owing on the original loans. Was it reasonable to expect people to agree to a loan that would lead to the reimposition of rates ?

COMPARISON OF CARGOES

“Misleading statements are, constantly being made that Napier is paving double the rates that are paid by the country people. , Napier, which pays double the rate in the £1 pays 15 per cent, of the total, while the country nays tlm remaining 85 per cent. Is it likely that the country would want to embark on a Breakwater scheme that would be likely to norpotunte the rate on property? The harbour should be conducted ns a business undertaking, and should not have to lean on the propertv owners after having rec" : vA d over' £500,000 from them. Tim Napier people certainly seem to want Q 5 per cent, of rhe say. (Laughter.) Yet all the produce comes ■'mm +bn country, who have to pay die charges.

A PROGRESSIVE POLICY.

“But there is, another way and a better one,” said Mr. Jull, “and I am going to suggest to you a progressive improvement policy at the Inner Harbour. We have a channel varying in depth at high water of 21 feet to 34 feet while the average depth between the piers at high water is 25 feet and the minimum depth 21 feet. It is desirable that this should be increased to 25 feet or 26 feet. We also want to widen that channel and deepen it •to enable larger vessels to work the harbour. “The suggestion was originally to hire a bucket dredge, but the board could not charter one. If we did have a dredge to work in the channel, we would only be able to work it at intervals as it would interfere with navigation. It has been suggested to me by the engineer, however, that instead of a bucket dredge we should put in a drag line excavator on the same principle as that erected at Awatoto. By that means we would be able economically to do the necessary dredging without any interference to shipping. . “Simultaneously with that it is suggested that we should hire a dredge to widen and deepen the basin of the Inner Harbour, using the material for reclamation ashore. You have heard something of a similar nature previously, but this is a modification along progressive lines that will meet the requirements of the port. The material from the basin will reclaim 30 acres, being sufficient for the south pond and eight acres immediatelp behind the extension of West Quay. In regard to the necessary finances, we have loan money available or we have the authority to rjise it. That money is equal to the needs of this dredging programme. With reference to the area for reclamation, we will deduct one-third for the provision of roads and then to take the land at onethird of the price quoted to us for the section at the corner of AVest Quay we will have land aggregating £70,625. I am not going to suggest that it will all be taken up immediately, but as it is taken up from time to time it will increase in value. “The next step in the programme will be the widening of the present West Quay by putting an extension of 50 feet in front of the present structure so as to enable dredging to be done to give the required depths for the berthing of large ships. In other words we should make use of tho AVest Quay area for the berthing of the larger liners that will be enabled to come in as a result of the work carried out.

Tlie estimate for this extension of quay is £1 per square foot, the total being £62,500. Sheds would cost another £lO,OOO. That quay alone would berth two overseas liners and a coastal vessel. It will be dredrjed to 30 feet a± the berth and 26 feet in the basin. Tho estimate for this work is £117,500. After allowing for sinking fund interest, etc., i« will mean that £9,400 will have vo tie found. I am satisfied that at present the board can find £4,000 a year. There would be a saving of £2,700 in the handling of cargo and then it is proposed to put a charge of 6d per ton on imports only, which will produce another £3,500, making £10,250 q year to provide for the interest and sinking fund without giving consideration to the return from the land that is to be reclaimed. “This programme of progressive improvement can be financed by the board and the only additional source of revenue needed will be the 6d per ton on imports. Really, that is a reduction because importers will be saving the 1/- per ton haulage that they now have to pay at the Breakwater.

CRUX OF POSITION

“Now we cope to the crux of the whole position,” continued Mr. Jull, “and that is tho alleged sano-drift. Four engineers have said that tho Inner Harbour channel would be expensive to construct and ccstly to maintain, as the drift would Constantly obliterate the channel. The

test patch dredged some years ago demonstrated that there was no dntt at all. Ihe Commission had said that it had not tound any evidence ot drift and considered that there was no fear of, siltation of the harbour works from this source. In other words, it has blown out the wondertul theory of sand-driit. It has also knocked out the prop from the argument that the Inner Harbour could only be built at a prohibitive cost. "Outside the pier heads to the Roadstead is a distance of about a mile averaging from 24 feet to 36 feet at high water along the alleged ‘ocean ditch.’ Over half the distance, the depth is 32 feet to 36 feet and for only 15 chains is it less than 26, feet. With improvements madp between the piers and to the basin, vessels of much greater length than could berth at the Breakwater would lie able to work the Inner Harbour. There is. a large percentage of overseas vessels that go to the Breakwated which could easily go to the Inner Harbour with very little being done. Once the channel is widened and the basin deepened, any of the boats would lie able to come in. There is no question about the shelter inside the Inner Harbour, and the channel that is spoken of would for be 600 feet wide, but about a quarter of a mile in width. In the straight line of the channel is a minimum depth of 27 feet, and the conditions would be at least equal to those gt Wanganui,

“Napier is not the only port in the world that has got an unprotected channel. At Liverpool—one of the greatest ports in the world—there is an eight-mile channel out to sea, and vessels with a draft of over 21| feet still have to wait a few hours before they can, enter. The old story of waiting for the tide will no doubt be raised, but it is not a serious thing for vessels to have to wait for a few hours, seeing that the actual number of vessels visiting Napier, in one year at the present time which are not berthed, is only 53. With two berths at the Inner Harbour, provision would be made for a stay of 720 days and there would be no greater delay than there is at Wellington, where there are only six berths for the loading of much more than thrice the number of overseas vessels. “In regard to the freezing companies, they have limitations as regards loading, as they can only deal with a certain amount, and even if rolling stock and wharf facilities were increased, it would not make any difference. At the Inner Harbour they could have all the accommodation needed.

“Our policy is to have better accommodation. We intend to purchase a dredge and reclaim areas which will pay for it. We also want a wharf and we don’t intend to levy rates on property or to increase wharfage rates. There is nothing theatrical about ; it. It is a plain business proposition that will pay for itself with savings in one respect and the imposition of 6d per ton on imports, which will really be a saving to consignees in another.” NAVIGATION DIFFICULTIES. Touching upon the question of the navigational evidence that was offered to the Commission, Mr. Jull pointed out that Captain Chudley, Marine Superintendent, reallv did not favour either harbour. In an interview given to a Hawke's Bay paper some time ago he had stated that there was not a shipmaster who would not be glad to get out of the Breakwater when the weather became rough. He then expressed the opinion that there should be two harbours—the Breakwater for the coastal trade and the Inner Harbour for overseas vessels. Once inside the Inner Hqrbour, Captain Chudley stated that he would not care what the weather was; he could go to sea when it moderated. Captain Hartman did not consider that the velocity of the current was detrimental. Another had said that he would take the Koituna drawing 17j feet at any state of the tide. The various harbour masters in tho employ of the board had all stated that thev would be prepared to take a vessel up u channel 6CO feet wide.. RECLAMATION. “We have been told that the Harbour Board bus done nothing inwards making land available for settlement, ’ said Mr. Jull when dealing with reclamation. “The board has been actively engaged in the building up of hundreds of acres by siltation. The spade-work has all been done over hundreds of acres and to-day the board is about to receive the first fruits of its work. Within a few weeks an area of 600 acres immediately eontigious to Napier will ho thrown open for settlement. The 28-acre block in the borough is being raised by the dredge and will soon bo available and it is hoped to commence loading it almost any time. Tho Harbour Board had got another section which will soon l>J available but delay in the approval of the plans bv the Borough Council had taken place. The Awatoto Mock was now being finalised by' tiie de-watering

pi-ocess, whioh would make more than' double the area of Napiei- South available in a month or two. Provision was also being made for the reclaiming of the 92-acre block just across the Tutaekurj river. These areas would keep the town from being ‘starved’ for sections until further land was available. “Instead of going about throwing mud at the Harbour Board and its reclamation work,” said Mr. Jull. “J would suggest that the people of Napier should look on the bright side of what is being done. Take ths leading citizen of the town for instance; he has been going about saying that the town was being strangled, when he knows full wen that there has been more reclamation activity at the present time than has been shown for the last 20 years. Yet it is suggested that I am the fellow who is strangling the town. I am trying to make your town attractive and we don’t want to be going round throwing mud at everybody. We have been up against a lot of official opposition •_ in fact we were told that reclamation was not the proper function for a harbour board. I am not, however, worrying about a little official opposition. The board has a financial interest in its endowments and is anxious to make them revenue producing, but on the othei hand, it does not seek to take the lash shilling out of its tenants. A DISTRESSING SITUATION. ‘‘lt is very distressing to find thai the people of Napier are day by day having the facts of the position misrepresented to them. A more monstrous misstatement of facts than that which appeared in a recent Issue of the Napier evening paper I have never seen. How they work in the tremendous sum alleged to have been spent on the Inner Harbour is nothing short of misleading mendacity. The people of Napier should realise the great work that has been done. The original plans provided for the East Coast railway branching off at Pandora Point, which meant the leaving of the railway along Hyderabad road where it was but a narrow, dismal lane which never got any sunshine. The board at its own- expense pushed the railway some several chains out, and the immediate effect of the embankment was the diversion of the river and- a better outfall for the storm water drainage which has since saved considerable areas in the town from being flooded. “The benefit achieved,” continued Mr. Jull, “had been due to the Harbour Board’s efforts, and he trusted that- the people would recognise that the members of the board had been actively engaged furthering the best interests of all concerned." In conclusion Mr. Jull made an earnesj appeal that all should pull together and embark on a harbour scheme that would be for the advancement of the district and not on a scheme of expense as the too great insistence on the Breakwater had proved to be.

On resuming his seat, Mr. Jull was greeted with prolonged applause. On the proposal of Mr. J. 11. Edmundson Mr. Jull was accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his most able address, in which he had clearly defined the policy of the board which, it was evident, still stood for progress.