PORT ADMINISTRATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19931, 27 April 1928, Page 9

PORT ADMINISTRATION.

X i » - COMPARISONS OF COSTS. - - '■ RETURNS FOR WELLINGTON. FIGURES ABOVE AUCKLAND. "Apparently Mr. Mitchell has adopted the policy of taking only those figures which suit his 'case instead of following the course of ascertaining first of all whether his statistics are capable of comparison," said Mr. H. B. Burnett, superintendent of the Auckland Harbour Board, yesterday, when challenging statements concerning harbour costs and charges, issued by Mr, G. Mitchell, ex-chairman and a member of the Wellington Harbour Board. " With Mr. Mitchell's principal contention that it is not economically sound for the Dominion to have a large number of secondary ports, each endeavouring to cater for overseas trade, the Auckland Board is in agreement, but when he seeks to show that the port charges here are considerably higher than those in Wellington we feel he has overstepped the mark."

" Mr. Mitchell has taken the 1925 figures, and in one of his tables he has stated that the total revenue was equivalent to 2s 9d a ton of goods handled at Wellington and 4s Id at Auckland. Analysis of his figures shows that while he has taken the revenue from the two ports of Auckland and Manukau, he has omitted to take note of the goods handled at the latter port. Had Mr. Mitchell counted in Onehunga's traffic as well as its revenue he would have found that the revenue for the two ports was os HAd a ton of goods handled. Internal Traffic Ignored. "There is the further point in this connection," Mr. Burnett said, "that the figures supplied to the Government Statistician concern only the traffic in and out of the harbours and the total thus provided does no'<i represent the full volume of trade in the ports by the amouut of the internal traffic within the harbour areas. When this trade is taken into consideration, as it should be, it will be found that \the ratio is reduced still further to 3s 8d of revenue for every ton of goods. - : "Mr. Mithcell falls into his most serious error when he seeks to show that ibe administrative costs and interest charges on a ton of goods handled amounted in 1925 to only lid at Wellington, against Is llcl at Auckland. In the first place he has made the same mistake with regard to the total of the goods hajidled, and when this correction is made the Auckland figure comes down to Is 9d. A Wrong Basis. " But the basis of Mr. Mitchell's calculations in this respect is wrong," Mr. Burnett continued. "In our returns to the Government Statistician we include the salaries, not only of our head office staff, but also those of-the storekeepers and traffic sections, which we - maintain must be included under the heading of administrative charges. The Wellington returns take note only of the salaries of the head office staff. The sum of £35,510 was not included in the Wellington return, although that amount was spent in 1925 in the payment of the wages of the wharf clerical staff. It is the Auckland Board's contention that maintenance, which also includes working expenses, should be included in the total of administrative costs.

"If it is fair for Mr. Mitchell to take the annual revenue as a basis for one calculation, then we consider he should take the whole of the annual expenditure for his other comparison. Worked out on this basis and adhering to Mr. Mitchell's cargo figures, although they are not accurate as far as Auckland is concerned, we find that in 1925 Wellington handled 1,685,948 tons of cargo, with a total revenue of £390,856, or 4s 7d a ton. In Auckland the tonnage was 1,875,606 tons, and the revenue £421,221, or 4s 6d a ton.". - Mr. Burnett added the errors into which Mr. Mitchell had fallen once again emphasised the necessity for uniformity in compiling the returns for submission to the Government Statistician.