PORTS COMPARED

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11875, 8 July 1924, Page 12

PORTS COMPARED

REVENUE AND CHARGES. CLAIMS OF LYTTELTON. . A COMPARATIVE RETURN. It was contended by a member of the Lyttelton Harbour Board) fMr H. Holland) that Lyttelton was the cheapest port in the Dominion. He submitted a comparison of the returns o-f the various ports to prove liis statements. The revenues, derived on deposits, dock duos, and rente, caid lilr Holland, were as follow: Wellington, <£25,404; Auckland, <£20,308; Lyttelton, <£8483; Otago, £17,450; Tim-aru, <£12,249; Wanganui, <£4005; Bluff, *61188; Adelaide, .£18,231; Fremantle, £731; Liverpool, £64,785. Receipts on account of ships' were: — Wellington, £141,050; Auckland, £79,764; Lyttelton, £53,401; Otago, £43,916; Timaru, £15,574; Wanganui, £6390; Bluff, £14,910; Adtelaide, £100,208; Fremantle, £80,319; Liverpool, £1,171,535. Recepits on account of goods were:—■ Wellington, £187,434; Auckland., £145,454; Lyttelton, £46, Otago, £79,295; Timaru, £17,239; Wanganui, £20,710; Bluff, £25,009; Adelaide, £204,235; Fremantlo, £192,084; Liverpool, £1,176,217. Miscellaneous receipts were:—Wellington, £13,142; Auckland, £38,109; Lyttelton, £857; Otago, £7960; Tim aim. £2544; Bluff, £3220; Wanganui, £1386; Fremantle, £8907; Adelaide, £9333. The totals were as follow: —Wellington, £367,034; Auckland, £466,415; Lyttelton, £110,365; Otago, £148,621; Fremantle, £282,038; Liverpool, £2,421,537. Goods tonnages in and out were: —Wellington, 1,662,504; Auckland, 1,619.371; Lyttelton, 691,756, Otago, 417,249;. Timaru, 153,760; Wanganui, 151,423; Bluff, 132,987; Adelaide, 2,035,085; Fremantle, 876,920; Liverpool, 13,200,000. Charges per ship per ton of goods wore: —Wellington, Is B£di; Auckland, Is; Lyttelton, Is 6£d; Otago, 2s Id; Timaru, 2s; Wanganui, lOd; Bluff, 2s 2£d; Adelaide. Hid; Fremantle, Is lOd; Liverpool, Is 9d. Charges on goods per ton were:—Wellington, 2s 3d; Auckland, Is 9d; Lyttelton, Is 4d; Otago, 3s 9jdl (receiving) and 2s 10£d (delivering); Timaru, 2s 3d; Wanganui, 2s 8d; Bluff, 3s 9d; Adelaide, Is llid; Fremantle, 4s 4d and 2s 9d (received amd delivered); Liverpool, Is 9id. Sundry charges .per ton of goods were: Wellington, 2d; Auckland, 5Jd; Lyttelton, 3d; Otago, 4%d; Timaru, sd; Wanganui, l(kl; Bluff. sid: Adelaide, Id. Developments .would be :—Ton of goods at Auckland, 3s 2id; Lyttelton, 2s lid; Otago, 6s 3d aiid 5s 4d; Timaru, 5s 8d; Wanganui, 3s 4d; Bluff, 6s sd; Adelaide, 3s; Fremantle, Cs 4id and 4s 9£d; Liverpool, Ss 6Jd.

In considering the respective positions of the ports, said Mr Holland, it seemed to him unfair that. Canterbury should bo expected to handle the same tonnage and produce the same revenue as a province twice as large, that Auckland province, had an area of 25,360 square males as against 13,856 square miles for Can-, terbury, including South Canterbury. In the matter of density of population Auckland had 12.17 to the square mile and Canterbury 13.12 . The port of Lyttelton was as econimically run as was any other port in New Zealand, and, as a member of the hoard, he was proud of the iposition which the figures disclosed. It was the duty of every member of the Iboard to be loyal to the board. He could not conceive of any member of the Auckland or Wellington Boards snyi nr; anything that would he disparaging to their boards.