CENTRALISATION OF SHIPPING

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16623, 16 April 1928, Page 5

CENTRALISATION OF SHIPPING

NAPIER REPLIES TO WELLINGTON The chairman of the Napier Harbor Board, llr. A. K. .lull, has issued the •following report in reply to Mr. Mitchell, chairman of the Wellington Harbor Board: — "At a meeting of the Wellington Harbor Board Mr. G. Mitchell has again brought, forward the question of the abolition ofl the flat rate of freights for Dominion' exports, but in reality what, he means is the centralising of oversea shipping. "In the preamble to his remarks Mr. Mitchell, as reported in the Dominion, asserts that he has no anxiety for Wellington, which is so bountifully provided "by nature with harbor facilities, but that'he is concerned for the people of the small centres where local ambitions to provide deep sea ports must, ultimately become a burden upon the people whom they are .supposed to serve.

"As Mr Mitchell specifically mentions Napier in his comparisons it is proper that some reply be made by me, ah though it is very distasteful to have to engage in any' controversy with our neighboring board members. "ft is very edifying to find that we have upon our neighboring harbor board men who are imbued with such a lively regard for their neighbors' interests, even if those neighbors are rivals in regard to the handling of the products of their district.

"Mr. Mitchell and his supporters, I am sure, will be only too pleased, therefore, to hear .something from those whose interests lie is so concerned about. Mr. Mitchell has taken as one of his examples the port of Napier. I ! will briefly allude to his remarks and figures quoted. '"Mr. Mitchell, like other persons, has been much misled by Hie figures supplied in the Dominion Year Book, particularly in regard to costs of administration." 1 had occasion a couple of years ago in my capacity in connection with the Counties Association to show how necessary if. is to use caution in accepting the statistical returns as_ a basis for computing the administrative costs of County Councils, as the compilation of these figures is made in almost' as many ways as there are Local Authorities, and until the tables are prepared upon identical lines they are not only useless but grossly misleading. The Harbors Association would do well to have, this matter of uniform statistics dealt with. "Mr. Mitchell., however, (I suppose m ignorance) has fallen into the error of accepting the statistical figures of the cost of' administration and for some reason which is not a bit clear, bases one of his arguments as to the cost of handling goods on the basis of the administrative costs of the respective harbor boards. "It may be only an accident that in choosing this basis of cost the figures supplied by the Wellington Harbor Board are computed in a very different way from other lioards, and by this method Wellington's cost of administration and interest charges for the year 1925 works out at lid per ton of cargo handled, Auckland Is lid, and Napier 4s 4d, just to take three of the ports mentioned. "Mr. Mitchell further works out on the basis of cost per ton of cargo compared witb the total revenue, less stevedoring charges—another little eccentricity in compiling costs. In this table Wellington's costs for handling cargo is three times as great as the costs per ton on the basis of the alleged administration costs, being 2s 9d per ton, while tho cost under this heading at Auckland is 4s id per ton, or slightly over twice as much, while Napier's costs are 4s 2d per ton, or actually less than under his administration costs. Really Mr. Mitchell should be more careful, for if be takes out a few more tables he will have Wellington's costs greater than Napier. "Let me quote one or two extracts from the statistics relating to administrative costs. The figures supplied by the Wellington Board for administration costs for the vear 1925 total £23,477, of which salaries are £4772, travelling expenses, collection of wharfages, etc., insurance, rates and taxes, legal, elec« tioti, and office expenses total and superannuation £1.2.196. > The last amount of superannuation of £12,196 as against salaries £4772 indicates the ridiculousness of the table. "In the Wellington accounts for the same vear, however,, are shown under working expenditure of city wharves three interesting items not, included inMr. Mitchell's costs:—(l) Share wharf management and head office expenditure £8216: (2) Wages, clerical staff £33,510; (3) wages of permanent and casual labor staff on city wharves £146.000. Tliese figures for salaries, wages for clerical and also permanent and casual labor staffs are very large ns compared with Auckland, whose accounts show in the same year salaries and office expenses £40,451. . "The Wellington Board, however, handles the cargo and the consignee pavs for it, while Auckland Board does not handle cargo and the ship pays for the work. In addition, Wellington m 1925 extracted £48,000 from the shipping companies for harbor improvement rate, a charge which neither Auckland nor Napier imposes. "It is quite idle for the Wellington Board members to shut their eyes to the tact that their costs of handling cargo for 1925. was according to their returns about £220.000 and that this has to be paid for by shippers. The dedution of this from their comparison ol costs pel ton is grossly misleading. The "cures submitted are no doubt intended to lead up to the final goal—that is. to browbeat, the shipping companies into a new policy of handling Dominion produce by adopting differential freights so that Wellington could be the centre of the oversea shipping for the Dominion as Melbourne and Sydney are in their States. . "It would appear that in the eyes of our Wellington friends the country must be made to serve the city. It w „uld not he long be ore they would, aire that instead of killing our meat in | Hawke's Bay and selling and shipping our wool the sheep and ambs ««ldta more profitably sent to the Wellington works'by rail and a eentrahsed wool selling .scheme would also be Hip proper course for such districts as Hawke s other alternative to shipping stock alive would be to have, as they advocate at present, a coastal fleet with msulated chambers so that the meat and other perishable produce conk be ouicldv handled. No account i* fnken Sf the duplication of handling the erecUot of huge stores to take the prod ce -,s it arrives and retain it until shipping could lake it away, with the consequential depreciation of the meat, etc The cos! of this shipping, handling and storins would he enormous and would, of course, have to be paid by the producer, to say nothing of the cost of a flop! of insulated coastal ships which would be employed for about half the vear.

"While it may be highly eommemh able for our Wellington friends to en. deavor to improve their harbor facilities and lo make provision for the efficient and economical handling of their trade, it, is quite another matter when an endeavor is made to so adjust their harbor charges so that they may unfairly cut into the legitimate trade of other ports to the permanent disadvantage of the producers or the districts which those ports serve. '"The 'Wellington Harbor Board ah ready receives a very considerable portion'oft its revenue from handling transhipments of inward cargo consigned to other districts.- Their wharfage, labor and other harbor charges are paid on those goods and tliese goods also is charged to the ships the board's harbor improvement rate, so that in effect a tax on other districts is already imposed for the benefit of Wellington—in consequence Hawke's Bay importers are assisting to provide Wellington with revenue which is being used as ammunition against Hawke's Bay's interests in respect, to exports. "May I suggest to Mr. Mitchell and the other Wellington members who support him that he remember the fable of the Dog and the Shadow us whgji the importers of the Hawke's Bay district wake up lo the true inwardness of Wellington's proposals Wellington may find that the transhipments for this district may be diverted to Auckland, which- port does not impose any labor charges nor harbor improvement rate. "The .Government lias set up a Transport Commission and this board should be alive to tat commission's activities, as I make, no doubt but that an effort will be made to induce such a commission to recommend the consolidation of shipping in the interests of the railways and of certain main ports. In this connection a paragraph in a leading article in the Dominion of March 29 last on road versus rail is v<:ry appropriate. The paragraph reads :—' Railway fares and freights may ho cheapened . . . hut no amount of reformative enterprise can entirely dispose of the point to point advantage held by the motor.' Now read this in regard to shipping, where lie the advantages to the producer in having his produce shipped at the nearest port, and yon have as good an argument as could be given against the centralising tendencies of our Wellington advocates.

"So far as Napier charges are concerned it is not necessary to enlarge on the reasons which compelled this board to continue up to now the rating of the property owners to the extent of about £15.000 per annum to supplement the board's revenue as Mr. Mitchell emphasises, but tin's year there will be no harbor hoard levied and I confidently see a beginning made of a reduction of wharfage on our wool find meat by !r!0 per rent., which is a practical reply to the board's critic*."