SUEZ CANAL DUES

Northern Advocate, 27 June 1935, Page 12

SUEZ CANAL DUES

LINER COSTS £4400 A TRIP

COMPANY’S HUGE BILL

SYDNEY, June 19

Mr E. W. Austin, president of the Sydney Harbour Trust, in an address to the North Sydney Rotary Club, criticised the high charges made for use of the Suez Canal. / In 1933. he said, the P. and O. Company (not including subsidiaries) paid £687,000 in canal dues. Each trip of the liner Mooltan cost £4400.

Mr Austin made his criticism during an address on the Port of Sydney, in which he defended the port charges. He said that many libellous statements had been made about high charges in Australia. These compared more than favourably with those of the leading ports in the United Kingdom. Typical bills of costs of ships coming to Aug' tralia had been analysed, and these showed that the government charges represented only one-fifth of the total costs, and about four-fifths was paid to private enterprise. The burden of the complaint of the London shipowner was that the cost of running vessels to Australia was high. This was admitted, but there were three factors responsible for this —Australia’s geographical position, the number •of ports of call in Australia, and the Suez Canal charges. Mr Austin said that although the Panama Canal cost two and a half times more to construct and twice as much to maintain, its charges were 25 per cent lower than those of the Suez, and it was paying its way. The accounts of the. Suez Canal Co., taken over a lengthy period, showed that nearly 72 per cent of the revenue was distributed in dividends. The canals carried about the same tonnage of shipping, but 57 per cent of the Suez traffic was British, and 75 per cent of the cargo. Yet Britain had only 10 directors out of 32, and held a sevensixteenth interest. The balance was held by French financiers. British shares cost £4,000,000 in 1875, yet the dividend on these last year was £4,655,000.