A MILLION A YEAR

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12559, 23 September 1926, Page 3

A MILLION A YEAR

CAN IT BE SAVED? PRODUCE FREIGHT PROBLEM FLAT RATE CONDEMNED A question of New Zealand importance was voiced at the Wellington Harbour Board last night, when the chairman, Mr M. Cohen, moved: “That in the opinion of this board the present system of the flat rate of freight from all ports in the Dominion is wrong in principle aud is must unjust to the main ports providing safe accommodation and modern facilities for handling ships and cargo; that it retains overseas ships on this coast for a much longer period than is necessary; that it prevents quick and regular shipments of our produce; and is generally against the interest of the Dominion.” STRIKING FIGURES Mr G. Mitchell seconded.- .He believed that in bringing this.before the people the board was doing something in the interest of the country. We were up against competitors for our Home markets, and we had to do everything we could to get Cargo there quickly and cheaply. In 1914-19 inclusive, he said, we had a credit balance of 41 millions sterling' of exports over imports and interest. The exports totalled £205,000,000,. the imports £145,000.000, and tho interest £163,000,000. In the six’ succeeding years the exports totalled £287,000,000, the imports £283,000,000, and the interest charges £28,000,000, showing a debit of £24,000,000, and during that time wo borrowed' £28,000,000. It seemed like a man having £SOO a - year, living at the rate of £6OO and borrowing £IOO to . make up the difference. It was only a matter of time when that, man most hit- the stop bank. In the last three years alone our purchases of motor-cars totalled £8,500,000 and petrol £6,000,000. We had been Very extravagant. Something was urgently necessary in regard to the whole question of shipping charges round our coast pnd delays in shipping. In three months 86 Home Vessels came to Wellington, stayed an average of 3J days, and lifted a total of 215j000 tons of cargo. It cost an average of -8s 5d per ton to handle those goods. In the same period 18 vessels went to another port. They were there six days each and it cost £4 10s 6d per ton to lift the goods. Sixteen ships went-to another rand lifted cargo at a cdst of £2 If the whole of our coastal shipping was as costly as the figures he had given indicate, it was time the Government took the matter up and made a statement of - the true position. It was time in the interest of New Zealand that the whole position was reviewed. If we had a direct service from the larger ports, the ocean freight could te cut- down consider-ably—-oven, perhaps, to the extent of a million a year. At present there were indications that certain ports proposed to borrow to take in the 20.000-ton vessels which were to come shortly. Those ports were being maintained not out of revenue, hut out of rates. SYSTEM INDEFENSIBLE Mr T. R. Barrer thought the present system was indefensible. The producers and the country were suffering .through the system.__of sending liners to small ports to collect, produce. He advocated quicker ; dispatch to the Home markets. Mr O. J. B. Norwood supported the arguments of Mr Mitchell, and Captain McArthur expressed the view that probably the ships would- not be sent to the .small ports unless circumstances' forced the companies to- do so. Mr C. H. Chapman said Mr Mitchell’s figures would make - anyone think. ,He thought* the Government would be forced to take action, and said that perhaps the Government played up to the existing system for political reasons. \He suggested a conference with the shipping companies. CONTROL BOARD’S CONTRACT Mr T. Moss said he thought that those who entered into the shipping contract of late—the «Control Board—were very rVeak indeed. He thought also there was a weakness in the railway tariff regarding produce. It was all very well to blame the Government, but the Government would only do what the people, would allow them to do. Mr J. G Cobbe said the flat rata system was unfair and could not be defended on any business ground. Mr Cohen said he felt sqre that there was no intention of making a special plea for Wellington. He thought the shipping companies must be held blameless-in the matter. Ail parochialism should he utterly disro garded. The discussion had been launch ed for the sake of New Zealand. It wat not the shipping companies a confer ence should be held with, hut th# peoole who paid. The motion was carried' unanimously.