WHARFAGE CHARGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14629, 15 March 1911, Page 4

WHARFAGE CHARGES.

AN EIGHT HOURS DAY.

EXTRA DUES FOR NIGHT WORK

SHIPOWNERS' PROTEST.

DECISION POSTPONED.

A special meeting of the Auckland Hiu'bour Board was held last night, and the principal business before it was a proposal to amend the by-law which fixes the wharfage upon vessels at -jd per ton per day.

The' Chairman of the Board (Mr. A. J. Entrican) proposed to add to this rule the

following : —" If such vessel shall dis-

charge between the hours of five p.m. and eight a.m., an additional fee of {d per ton extra on the frontage of such vessel for each continous period not exceeding eight hours that the vessel shall so discharge, and id per ton on such tonnage for each continuous period exceeding eight hours that such vessel shall so discharge." A large deputation of representatives of the Shipowners' Federation waited upon the Board to state its reasons for objecting to the proposal.

The Chairman said the proposed amendment was not intended to apply to coastal vessels at all, but only to deep-sea steamers, which occasionally used the facilities of the port at night. Mr. % E. Ford, chairman of the Shipowners' Federation, introduced the deputation. A Bombshell to Shipowners. Mr. E. W. Alison said that, as it was drafted, the by-law clearly included all classes of vessel trading to the port.. He said the proposals to increase the wharfage charges of the port came as a bombshell to shipowners, 1 who, along-with the whole community, had been led to believe that no additional taxation would be imposed upon either shipping or payers of dues consequent upon the carrying but of the harbour improvement scheme of works. The late chairman of the Board, the Hon. E. Mitchelson, wag most pronounced and emphatic in his statements that so long as the Board did not exceed an expenditure of , £100,000 per annum it would not be necessary to add to the existing charges, and that he would strongly urge the desirableness of confining the expenditure on loan account to £100,000 per annum, as originally intended. But, notwithstanding the oft-repeated assertion, " that it would liob be necessary to add to the existing charges," what was the fact? Only a short time ago a strong and influential deputation waited upon the Board to urge that proposed by-laws, which made provision for increased shipping and port charges and dock dues, should .cither not be made operative or materially amended. The representations of the deputation received consideration, and some amendments were made, but the charges on vessels, including dock dues, were nevertheless substantially increased.

Cheap Facilities Wanted. Had the imposition of the additional charges on shipping benefited or tended to popularise our port? asked Mr. Alison. Had the revenue of the Board been increased by the increase of dock dues? Were oversea or large coastal steamers encouraged to dock at Auckland? Not at all* Large steamers only clocked at Auckland now when compelled to do so. They were, by excessive charges, driven to dock at other places, and the consequent indirect advantages attendant upon the docking of such vessels were lost to the port. Excessive charges on shipping at any port led to one inevitable result, via., Ices of trade and consequent injury to port and city. In the federation's opinion it was clearly the duty of the Hoard to provide shipping facilities at the port at a minimum, not the maximum, of cost. It was, he contended, clearly the duty of the Board to encourage ,and attract large, steamers to trade to our port, and also to encourage and assist in every reasonable way coastal traders and local steamers and vessels to trade eucccfsfully. They submitted that the first and last aim of the Board should not be the exactiqh of high charges to secure increased revenue, nor to gain that end the prolongation of the time of unloading oversea steamers and other vessels, or the exaction, of a high penalty for quick discharge of freight, but rather by a safe and solid progressiveness, by prudent and economical administration, by the providing of requisite and efficient wharfage accommodation and facilities, by the imposition of moderate and "reasonable charges, to advance and popularise the port, which was unequalled in New Zealand or few other countries for its natural advantages arid for the .richue&i of it« endowments. The proposals of the chairman to again increase the charges on shipping, if made law, would not .only be seriously prejudicial to the interests of shipping, but would give Auckland a bad name and cause injury and loss to both port and city The Proposed New Charge.

Regarding the proposed amended bylaws, taking, tho case of large oversea steamers, Mr. Alison said the present bylaw provided for a wharfage charge of jd per ton per day or part of a day, while under the proposed amendment a steamer unloading cargo and working *24 hours, instead of "being charged Jd per ton, would have to pay 2d per* ton, which, on a steamer of, say, 6000 tons net register, would amount to £18 15s per day, as against the present charge of £6 5s per day. Then it must bo remembered that the wharfage charge was made on the full net tonnage of the ship, irrespective of tho amount of cargo landed or shipped. For instance, if a 6000 ton steamer landed 1500 tons of cargo she paid on 6000 • tons at id per ton , per day. Under existing conditions large quantities of cargo for o%;r-n:t« were landed at Auckland by oversea stealers for transhipment, and from this source the Board obtained a large revenue. If the proposed excessive wharfage charges were imposed, companies would, for their own protection, tranship at other ports where the charges were much less and reasonable. To drive away shipping business was surely opposed to the best interests of the port, and would injure, not advance, the finances of the Board.

! Cost of Night Work. The chairman, in a recent interview, had stated " that on several occasions vessels coming to the port with very large cargoes in order to save time have taken advantage of the facilities provided by the Board at very great cost, and have worked night and day till they finished." "Why,"' asked Mr. Alison, "should they not do so?" Was not the object of the improved facilities to give despatch in the loading and unloading of ships Surely the aim of the Board should not be to detain large steamers to gain increased revenue, but should, on the other.hand, be to expedite the handling and delivery of cargo and ensure despatch. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in discharging or loading cargo at night, the expense was greatly increased, the cost of labour in many instances being double. The chairman had stated ""that the amendment does not seek to penalise the ship in any way, but rather to see that the ship only pays the same wharfage whether she lies six days and discharges at the wharf in so many working hours, or elects to work night and day and get away in two days." If the chairman's statement was supported by the Board, then shipowners, need not, as far as Auckland was concerned, expect to gain advantage from the Board's enormous expenditure on improved wharfage accommodation and facilities, or by a ship providing improved appliances or methods for the expeditious \ ..haadjint. el goods* It. must,: be. admitted j

also that owing to the want of sufficient berthage accommodation it had {vefpMffltly been necessary for ships to work overtime jn order to clear the berths for other vessols.' ■ ■ i .Intercolonial Vwtels. The Union Company and Hiuhk.itParker - line* of pawwigoi' ptdiinwro would' also \n\ wioimly «ffot!t*id, m nifwwtedly lliey'aro 'compelled, to work before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m. Ho fin- us tho (WMO steamed of the Union Cmnpiwvy, Craig line of both wititini and eailwtt, and other coastal and Intwoohmlal vf*t»»e|w th« work of loading and diwhitiginp; ffwpututly ex;tended over eljjjht Itonw, iitid in s©we in* Niaiiwrt «»xt«iid#d (iii'ot)gltoii(i Wi» 24 hours, It. wiw ewiwiiUitl that thgfje sVeftUWi and vcsbolm should l«* tiJififtiKJouHly looted ,and unloaded, ami ha nmwi wa<*. it I'lfiionahlo or tight that th« Hoard tdmubl Iflipond ox* treme wharf itao dwti'ijfw upon the owners of ouch v«Wii ill I'tniyintf out I halt* regular trades., Ho had 1 been informed by shipping ooutieriiM that tint pout of landing cargo hud recently iiWrMNd ton per cent., the extra cowl, for largo steamers averaging £20,

The Coastal Fleet. Then, taking the Northern Company's fleet of coastal• steamers, the majority of which < are run on tidal services, which necessitates their being worked at irregular hour*—fov "time and tide wait for no man."— tho proposed amendments were carried the charges imposed on this company would be excessive, and the company, through running tidal services, would be unable to avoid payment, as the cargo work could not possibly be carried out from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Even in relation to labour on these tidal services, the company, under the award of the Arbitration Court, was exempted from, paying overtime rate caused through working these tidal services. The Wakatere, 157 tons register, repeatedly arrived after 5 p.m., and loaded the same evening in order to catch the tide at the Thames. The extra cost to the company on this steamer alone would exceed £50 per annum. In the case of the Clansman 379 tons register—■ tho estimated extra coet was 30s per week, or Jb/8 per annum.

, Effect on Fares and Freight. Without detailing the extra "cost on each of this company's steamers, Mi'. Alison said it -was certain that the wharfage charges of the company would bo increased several hundreds of pounds yearly. This charge must either be borne by the company, or passed,on to the . settlers and travelling public., The company was doing its, best to keen its rates tor fares and freights as low as possible, and had to compete in some trades with the Government railways, and in* others with auxiliary vessels and motor launches, and in snch trades could not increase either its fares or freights. It would indeed be regrettable if through excessive taxation imposed by the Harbour Board the coastal companies and traders were compelled to either suffer serious financial loss or to increase their rates. Such a course could not by any line of reasoning be called a "progressive policy,' 1 but must inevitably tend to retrogression. The company would also be affected by the proposed charge of £1 per day for each vessel other than a launch temporarily used as a ferry boat or otherwise in the carriage of passengers between places within the harbour. This would be a direct charge on the company, which would have to suffer a further wharfage penalty simply because the company found it to its occasional advantage to charter steamers for the- carrying of passengers within the harbour. The remarks he had made with reference to the Northern Company's steamers applied to the coastal traders generally, including the large fleet of vessels owned by Messrs. J. J. Craig, J. Smith and Co., Wilsons Cement Company, Northern Coal Company, Clevedon Steam Navigation Company, Ford Shipping Line, Geo. Niccol, T. Carlaw, R. S. Reynolds, Winstone and Com-.-pany, liiddick and Goldsboro', Jagger and Company, Captain Subritzky, and numerous others—the requirements of the various trades necessitating these owners" vessels being worked from time to time before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m. No Application to Coasters. At this point the chairman reminded Mr. Alison of what he had said at the beginning of the meeting. , It was not "the intention of the Board that tbf» proposal should apply to such vessels at all. Mr. Alison : 1 am just taking your bylaw. The Chairman : Well, if you like, to waste our timo and yours, you can. li i* our intention not to affect these vessels,. and you are wasting time by setting something up just to knock it down. Mr. Alison was proceeding with his address, but was again stopped by the chairman, who said it was no use going on. No proposal had yet been passed by the Board* no decision had been en-no to, and, the motion would be amended and shaped in accordance with what he had stated. Care would be taken thai the rule was not made to apply to small vessels.

Vehicular Feiries. »' Mr. Alison asked whether the Board intended, as understood it did, to make a charge of 10s per steamer per month for each wharf at which the steamers culled, west of Sentinel Rock;' > The Chairman said that was provided in the existing by-laws. Mr. Alison then questioned the chairman as to the charges to be made for the wharfage on vehicles ferried across the harbour, and Mr. Entrican said that those J charges had been fixed at the last meet--1 ing of the Board. The subject of the present discussion had been ~ postponed specially to allow the shipowners to express their views. '~ Mr. Alison said that if that was so, and part of the charges had been settled without an opportunity for their discussion, then the business of the Board was conducted in a very extraordinary way. An Admonition. The Chairman: I will not allow you to reflect upon the way in which the Board's business is conducted, Mr. Alison. Mr. Alison replied that he needed'no admonition as to how to behave myself ; he knew perfectly well how to conduct himself. If what he had said had given offence, it was not much use speaking about anything. The Chairman said'he could not allow the sneaker to reflect upon the way the Board conducted its business. "Revenue Hunting." Mr. Alison said it was proposed that a charge of £5 per month be paid by every vessel using the vehicular staging at Auckland and £2 10s each for Devonport and Birkenheadthat was, the Ferry Company would be called upon to pay £120 per annum lor "staging charges" for the Goshawk, and as the company was building another vehicular steamer the charges would amount to £240 per annum. There could bo no doubt that the Board was out revenue-hunting, and it. was certainly not in accord with the remarks-made by Mr. Gunson recently at the . Chamber of .Commerce annual dinner referring to the*' progress of the port and its facilities "that? if a continuance of the supremacy of the pott in the matter of general facilities and the receipt and despatch of vessels and their cargo was to be maintained, they must urge and support the modern development of methods to improve in every way euch facilities and. reduce to a minimum the cost of doing business." , Mr. Guneon's remarks were commendable, but as far as reducing the charges to a minimum was concerned, were in 4i rect ' opposition to the existing revenue-producing policy exhibited in the proposed amended by-laws. • The deputation desired to urge that as the terms of office of the-present Board would expire within about a month, and as the incoming Board would be elected under a new constitution, it would be fitting and proper for the Board to take no further steps in relation to the proposals, leaving the new Board to determine upon such an important and far-reaching question of administration. -

, Cost of Handling Cargo. , Mr. C. V. Houghton, manager of the Nevfr Zealand Shipping Company, said that as far as direct steamers were concerned Mr. Alison had stated the. facts fairly. Ho added that the railway lines on the wharf were all wrong, and the sheds had " amateur" stamped all over them. He did not know wfio was to blame for the railway linos, but they necessitated a great deal .more stevedoring., The. sheds were

not long enough, and th© vessels had to discharge* into two at mice, necessitating twice as many tally clerks. The fact was that there was nobody on the Board who know "port" from "etatboard" in shipping. ■ Mr. Virtue asked whether Mr. Houghton could bring any figures to show how the cost of handling cargo had been ineisetwed.

Mr. Houghton replied that he had not come prepared with figures, but he oould get them. Mr. Irvine, manager for the Union Company, endorsed what had been said by the previous speakers. a Mr. Hanson said that, in view of the chairman's assurance regarding the exclusion of small vessels from the scope of the provision, he need say nothing. Mr. Irvine asked whether the Union Company's coastal and intercolonial steamers would not be excluded along with the others referred to by Mr. Entrican.

Revenue Falling OS. The Chairman said that it seemed to him the proper thing would be to exempt all coastwise Vessels. It was deep-eea vessels, bringing large cargoes, that he wanted to reach, so that they would pay the same revenue by working straight on as by lying over for ordinary working days. He wanted it to be very clearly understood that there had been no effort on the part of the Board to hunt for revenue, or to increase the revenue. But last year, although there was an increase in the tonnage of ehipping, the revenue from wharfage shoVed a decrease. That meant either that the steamers were getting much quicker despatch, or that they were working night and day without extra charge. As business men, it was their duty to see that their revenue did not fall off, and with an expenditure of £100,000 a year to meet, they had to put their finger on the weak spot. If berthage and sheds had to he provided, then the Board should have the same revenue from a ship, whether she worked straight through or stayed from day to day. Mr. Entrican proceeded to criticise the (statements made by Messrs. Alison and Houghton as lo the increased charges levied by the Board, and Mr. Houghton quoted, in reply, the fees charged for the use of the tug and tow ropes. i Mr. Napier: You have to pay those at Lyttelton. Mr. Houghton: This isn't Lyttelton. He continued that one of the reasons why vessels had got away more quickly was that though the tonnage was greater the amount of cargo handled was not-auch greater. The Chairman said the wharfage on goods had increased by a large amount. In the course of further discussion,* Mr. Irvine said that if a, penalty were' put upon quick despatch, there Would be a fleet of vessels lying in the harbour waiting for berths, but the chairman said that was fudge. <?' Comparison With Other Forts. Mr. Entrican continued that a comparison betweeen the charges showed that 6000 tons; of cargo, discharged straight away, could be handled in Auckland for port charges amounting to £200. In Wellington, the cost would he £350, partly because one shilling per ton was charged on all cargo handled during overtime. A great point had been made of the idea that the Board, wanted to detain vessels. It did not want anything of the sort. All it had to do was to consider its.revenue. - The deputation then retired. Consideration Deferred. .

Mr. Napier moved that further consideration of the matter should be deferred for eight weeks, the secretary to prepare and circulate among the members by May 2 a statement showing the aggregate payments made by vessels of various large tonnages at Port Chalmers, Lyttelton, Wellington, Auckland, Melbourne and Sydney, when working during ordinary hours, and with overtime.

Some discussion ensued. Mr. Gunson, while supporting, the motion, said there was clearly a need for such an arrangement as that proposed by the chairman. The attitude taken tip by the deputation was simply an electioneering dodge. It was well known that a section of business men were strongly opposed to the present Board, tod that was an attemnt to agitate against them. But the Board was not going to' toady to the shipping companies. As* long as it was in office, the consumers arid the people were going to (receive first consideration at , its Winds. The motion to defer consideration of the proposal was carried unanimously, BERTHING PERMITS. SMALL I SHIPOWNERS' PROTEST. A deputation; from the Coastal Masters 1 Association, headed by.Captain E. M. Stenliford (secretary) and Captain J. Dowd (vice-president) waited on the Harbour Board yesterday afternoon to ask it to withdraw small vessels from the operation of No. 30 of the Board's by-laws. The by-law in question provides that no vessel may be berthed at or removed from a wharf except when the harbourmaster is in charge of the \ work, unless the master holds a berthing permit; and that such berthing permits are to be issued at the discretion of the harbourmaster upon payment of d. fee of £2 2s. Captain Stentiford said that the charge for a permit was a serious matter, and was equivalent to the last straw. The owners of small craft were a struggling community, and many of them had already asserted that they* might as well take to pick and shovel work or dig gum. The restrictions arid dues now in force were harassing in the extreme, and any further claims would simply make the owners of small craft turn their attention shorewards for a, living. Captain Dowd supported the first speaker's arguments. The Chairman said that the.Board had no intention whatever of harassing small ship- ' owners, and it was not intended in any way to put a tax upon them. However the bylaw read it was not proposed to make thoso masters pay a tax who were not supposed to do so under the old by-law. The Board decided to refer the by-law to the Finance and Legal Committee for revision.