CHARGES IN DISPUTE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18253, 23 November 1933, Page 8

CHARGES IN DISPUTE

CARRIAGE OF GOODS AUTHORITY’S VIEW From t!io indications given during the past two days of the wide divergence between the views of the Master Carriers’ Association in Poverty Pay and the No. 4 District Transport Licensing Authority, as to what is a fair scale of charges lor the road carriage of general and seasonal freight in this district, it was anticipated that the discussion of actual costs, set down for to-day, would be full of interest. The chairman of the authority, Mr. F. B. Logan, had previously indicated the opinion _of the authority that the master carriers had raised the prices unreasonably for tile current season, and Air. D. E. Chrisp, appearing for tile master carriers,_ had expressed strong dissent trom that view. Opening up the question to-day, Air. Logan staled that it was not for the authority to justify the statement which had been made to the press the other day on the subject. He recalled, how ever, that some time ago the authority had stated that it would not be tbe purpose of the authority to fix charges for the meantime, as long as tile charges remained reasonable. However, in the meantime he and his colleagues had received numerous complaints, and only this morning a farmer friend had charged him and the authority with being responsible for the rise in prices for transport. .This farmer had told him that the carrier who had handled ids lambs for years had said that be was making quite a good thing out of the business at 3d per head of lambs, hut he had been forced into a bond for £2OO, as a guarantee that he would not cut the prices, and was forced to charge 8d per head. Tile chairman and the other members of the authority had received other complaints that indicated that the farmers had been told that the authority had fixed the present scale of charges. The criticism of t!n>, charges which he lin'd

made for publication was based on the figures placed before the authority by the carriers themselves. The members of tbe authority wished to clear their own names in respect of the charge that they had imposed the new rates. Mr. D. E. Chrisp, appearing for the Master Carriers’ Association, stated that any allegation that the authority had fixed the charges was, of course, quite untrue. In regard to the increase in the scale of charges, he submitted, however, that but for the operation of the Transport Act, the carriers would not have had to get together and fix a settled schedule of charges. The Transport Act imposed regulations that neees- ■ fed the carriers fixing a rate that

mild be. shown to be profitable, and that was in substance what, had been lone,, Mr. Chrisp stated that lie would not go further into the matter at this stage, lmt would submit that the charges could be substantiated from the records of the carriers. Air. A. H. Afonk. a member of the Master Carriers’ Association executive, stated that while he fully endorsed what Mr. Chrisp had said as to the authority’s freedom from responsibility for the present scale of charges, lie nevertheless held that but for tile requirements of the Transport Act. there would be no fixed schedule among the carriers of Poverty Bay. No one had been forced to join the association, and though ' there was r bond, as mentioned, that was necessary to maintain the association. Mr. Afonk held that the scale of charges was fully justified by Hie circumstances, arid that this could be proved by reference to running costs. The Transport Act laid it down that'the carriers must state the price at which they were prepared to carry freight, and ho felt that the authority, in making its statement in regard to the scale of charges, should have made it clear that the carriers were under their obligation.

Air. N. H. Bull stated that he appeared for a farmer, Air. W. Melldowie, who could give definite evidence of the rise ill charges. He reviewed the position that his client would depose to, and called the witness.

William Melldowie, farmer, of Totangi. stated that he had had his lambs carried in 1931 and 1932 at 4d per head, and his wool at 15s per bale. The new scale was 9.84 d per head for lambs, and 24s per bale for wool. lie considered that these prices were out of proportion, and that a fair price for lambs would be perhaps 6d and for wool £1 per bale, lie had not advertised for tenders, nor had he been consulted in the fixing of the rates. He was told by the carrier who handled his stock and wool that the old scale had not given any margin of profit. To Air. Chrisp, witness stated that he knew nothing of the costs of running a heavy lorry, ami would he surprised to hear that the cost was actually Is 3d per mile. He was on a road that was only partly metalled, but there had been only one occasion that he knew of when a lorry was caught in the rain on the road. When the weather was wet, lie always drove his stock out to the metal to meet the trucks. He did not think the risk was a serious one for the lorries.

The chairman of the authority, quoting from the earners’ own figures, submitted to the Transport Department, stated that there were six trucks in the district, running at a cost of 10.25 d, and two 0. trucks, running at 14.50 d. He held that the average for all the trucks was 1j..25d.

Mr. Chrisp stated that those figures were subject to correction now that the carriers knew tins real cost of operating, lie Could produce tracks that cost Is 4d per mile to ran, and he woidd pot the figures bofoiw anyone whom the authority nominated.

Mr. IS. Monk asked the, witness ■whether in 1931 the railway was operating to Ngatapa, and the Railway Department was holding a pistol to the farmers’ heads, and stating that they would not carry the farmers’ lambs if they did not put their wool on the rails? Then there was a rate wav, too, at the time, and in the Ngatapa district the lamb charges were always very low. lie held that no other area , with the possible exception of Titiiroto, was likely to complain of the charges for lambs.

Another carrier pointed out that last year’s charges were nowhere near where they should have been. The present prices were reasonable, lie considered, especially in view of the fact that unless flie carriers could show themselves to lie financial, they could not hope for a renewal of their licenses next year.

Mr. 11. Dickinson remarked that the fanners in one ana, in the Ruakituri, were paying less under the new schedule for lamb carting than they had under the old scale.

Mr. Chrisp asked the authority to accept the assurance of the Master Carriers’ Association that the new scale had not been fixed arbitrarily. The association had approached the farmers’ organi-

sations, anti had informed them of the proposed scale of charges, and if there was any complaint, the farmers could submit their objections to the association.

The chairman of the authority stated that the authority had received a letter expressing the objection of the Farmers’ Union to the new scale of charges.

Mr A. J. .Stock, speaking on behalf of the Poverty Bay and East Coast Shecpowners ’ Union, stated that when the Carriers’ Association had ap-

proached the executive of his body, it had been informed that the union’s executive could not bind any member to agreement with tho new schedule of prices. The union held that the best means of settling the matter was an open inquiry by the licensing authority. His executive was firmly opposed to the fixation of prices for any service, and would prefer to have open competition. Mr Chrisp pointed out that the Transport Act had been framed to eliminate unnecessary competition. There was no essential difference between I lie fixing of fares for passenger services arid the fixing of rales for freight: services, he held. The chairman said that the authority would prefer that the carriers and farmers confer together on tho question, in the hope of coming to sonic agreement on the scale of charges. Mr Chrisp offered to place all relevant figures before any competent expert nominated by the farmers’ organisation. He understood that the muster carriers would hold a meeting immediately to consider interim relief for tho farmers, as suggested by tho chairman. It might Ihc possible to allow some easing of the scale, in view of the experience gained by the Carrie rs.

The chairman, accepting Mr. Chrisp’s undertaking, stated that if the authority was finally called on to fix prices, it would doubtless fix maximum prices, which would allow of competition. Mr. Chrisp: Then the carriers would have to fix minimum prices, or in two years they will all be out. Tho chairman: The carriers have been going for a number of years, and the old firms are still going strong. Why were they not out before? Mr. Chi’isp: But it’s only in the last year or two that carriers have become so numerous. Lately, anyone who could not do anything else became a carrier. (Laughter.) Mr. Logan: Like the lawyers. They also continue to increase. Mr. Chrisp: Well, of course, we also lix minimum charges. (Renewed laugh tor.) After further discussion, I lie chairman adjourned the matter and expressed tho hope that as a result of a conference between the carriers and representatives of the farmers, the prices would bo adjusted to the general satisfaction of all.