HARBOUR CHARGES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 7, 19 December 1932, Page 7

HARBOUR CHARGES

FLAT RATE PROPOSED PRODUCERS WANT NO HAULACE PAYMENTS. BOARD WILL MAKE ENQUIRIES. A large amount of correspondence was before the Napier Harbour Board to-day in winch requests were made for the elimination of haulage on produce to the Breakwater. The Hawke’s Bay Woolbrokers’ Association pointed out that any additional charge tended to force wool into the Wellington market. The board ” w'as also reminded that active efforts were being made to induce fanners in Southern Hawke’s Bay to forward their wool to Wellington. Various members were strongly in favour of the haufage charge being eliminated and a flat rate imposed, and as a result the board decided, on tho motion of the chairman, Mr T. M. Geddis, that the whole matter be referred to the by-laws committee with a view to considering the imposition of a flat rate in lieu of the present charges. Mr J. C. Bryant suggested the abolition of all hauling charges and held that the board should not discriminate between various classes of produce. Mr A. E. Jull, M.P., considered that the board’s legal advisers had strained to the utmost the suggestion that the board had no power to differentiate between classes of produce. The board could not, however, differentiate between consignees with the same class of produce. The board had decided to eliminate haulage on frozen meat. The chairman: That was subject to tfiere being no legal disabilities.

Mr Jull considered that there were uo fegal poiuts to prevent it. It was manifestly absurd to suggest that other classes of goods might get hauled in frozen meat trucks. He considered that the suggestion by Mr Bryant was worthy of inquiry.

Mr L. Stephenson thought there should be a flat rate without any differentiation between the haulage charges. Possibly the board might see ICs way to amend the motion, with a recommendation to the by-laws committee that they investigate the question of a flat rate for wharfage. The speaker had been an advocate of a flat rate ever since he joined the board. He quite agreed that in these matters the board should assist the various concerns trading in Napier, but it surprised him to find that for years they uad been content to pay on a 10/lighterage basis, without raising any issue. WOOL BROKERS’ POSITION. Continuing, he remarked that with the wool brokers the position was acute, but it was possible they could have met the situation themselves. He understood that on occasions they had limited the charge to wool shippers. The speaker said he would support the motion, provided a clause be inserted. He suggested the board review the whole subject of charges with the view to eliminating haulage, and to impose a flat rate. The chairman (Mr T. M. Geddis) said that with tbe approval of the seconder, this insertion should be incorporated in the motion. Mr A. E. Julll objected that this opened up a new avenue for discussion. He was afraid that in discussion of haulage charges the board was likely to side-step in order to protect itself. Anyone who knew the wool problem must realise that an amount of haulage equal almost to a wharfage charge in Wellington on wool was an additional imposition that might make it difficult for wool brokers to secure or retain the Southern Hawke’s Bay people. He hoped that the bqard, in trying to carry out some scheme of flat rate charges, would not imperil the granting of a concession to which the board itself agreed, and which he thought were justified. It meant a danger if the concession were not granted to frozen meat, wool, and dairy produce. Mr P. Higgins said that for years a section of the board—those who supported the Breakwater —had used as an argument in favour of deep sea facilities the cost of lighterage. For years, too, they had maintained fnat if this cost were eliminated the outcome would be increased trade to the board. He had heard representations from shipping people and merchants that the exporter would not pay these charges. Whether these were eliminated or limited would not affect the primary producer. He had heard Mr Jull use the same argument many times. The speaker said he did not think the amount involved was a serious matter, but it had been regarded as serious by interested parties. He was pleased to hear the representations made by the wool brokers and others.

n We must keep our word, but at the same time the board should bear in mind our finances,” said Mr Higgins. “If we are going to give a service for nothing that is going to amount to thousands of pounds, this board will find its revenue short. We must look at this aspect as well.”