ISLAND SERVICES

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11739, 29 January 1924, Page 7

ISLAND SERVICES

BIG SUBSIDY WANTED SHIPPING COMPANIES AND CON TRACT CONDITIONS. SERIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED.(Special to ‘‘New Zealand Times.”) AUCKLAND, January 28. The attempt being made by the Cook Islands Administration to secure a greatly improved service between New Zealand, the Cook group and Niue Island has not been received very enthusiastically in certain shipping circles. It was pointed out to a “Star” representative by a well-known shipping agent in Auckland, one who has very extensive knowledge of the Island trade, that a substantial subsidy would be required before any shipping company would tender for any of the three contracts offered. He had pointed this out to the department, and in reply he was informed that he was not in a position to judge how big a subsidy the Government was prepared to pay. One of the oontracts—the least objectionable—is for a service between Auckland and Niue only, It does not specify the kind of vessel, whether sailing, auxiliary, or steamer. A minimum of six tripe per annum is stipulated, but, if the vessel is not a steame W the contract is to be for one year or".', three years being the period in oase of a steamer. The opinion was expressed that it would not pay any company to fit out a vessel for one year’s contract. Evidently the department was in hopes of inaugurating a good steamer service in the near future and did not desire to he burdened by having a protracted contract on ita hands. A SERIOUS OBJECTION. The second contract is for eight trips annually between Auckland and Apia, calling at Niue both going and coming, and the third is between New Zealand and Cook Islands, averaging seven trips per year. The Cook Islands steamer ie to leave Auckland and return to Wellington and Lyttelton or Dunedin, at the discretion of the Minister. The vessel going to Samoa must Undertake the delivery of bunker coal to the Samoan Government at the rate of £3 os per ton c.i.f. Apia. A serious objection is taken to the fact that no quantity is specified or any_ mention made of notice being given in regard to delivery and loading of the ooal. Such a contract, said the shipping authority interviewed, would only be of use to a company like the Union Steam Ship Company, because no other® could reckon to carry coal without any idea as to quantity. It was possible that the Union boats were too big to go to places like Niue; the risk was too great. The insurance companies might even object, because there was no anchorage for big steamers at Niue. They would be off and on all the time. Niue was out of the track, and it involved a detour of a couple of hundred miles or three hundred miles. The view was also expressed that the Apia people were not likely to ship fruit when the vessel was to call at Niue on the way back and load there. It was unlikely that dependence could be put on fruit coming from Samoa. “UNWORKABLE AND UNPAYABLE." Serious objection was also taken to the following clause: “Provided that the Minister shall be entitled to call upon the contractor to extend the (return) trip to Lyttelton and Dunedin via Wellington, when the quantity of fruit or other cargo from Apia or Niu« on any inward voyage, or from Lyttelton or Wellington on any outwarl voyage, in his opinion justifies such extension.” It was one of, the chief ob jections to the Apia contract that that option given to the Minister would render it unworkable, and the transhipment of cargo would he unpayable. Por example, bananas in bunches to all parts were to be paid at the rate of la 9d per bunch, which made it impossible to tranship them profitably. In conclusion, the shipping man remarked that nothing but a big subsidy, perhaps £IOOO per trip, would induce anyone to take up the contract.