BLUFF SHIPPING

Southland Times, Issue 18974, 22 June 1923, Page 5

BLUFF SHIPPING

THE AUSTRALIAN SERVICE STATEMENT BY MR BRODRICK REPLY TO UNION COMPANY. At the meeting of the Southland League Executive Council yesterday afternoon the president (Mr C. J. Brodrick) took the opportunity of making a statement in regard to the official reply (published last Tuesday morning) given by the Union Steam Ship Company concerning the representations which have been made by the Southland league and other interested bodies for an extension of shipping facilities between Bluff and Australian ports. “In advocating improved passenger steamer services between the southern portion of New Zealand with Australia it is generally acknowledged that without these the South Island will never prosper as it should do as visitors to the Dominion will not visit the South Island unless they have a special itinerary mapped out for that purpose, and so consequently we lose the general trade and publicity that a stream of traffic would engender. I have frequently made reference to the fact that the Bluff is the nearest deep sea port in New Zealand to Australia and quoted many figures to bear out the statement. I stated at our last annual meeting on May 25, that in consequence of having no direct passenger service between Bluff and Sydney and thus having to go round by Wellington, we had to go 661 miles out of our way both going and coming, a total of 1322 miles. His speaks for itself both as to loss of time and extra expense. He distances are as follows : —Bluff to Sydney via Dunedin, Christchurch and Wellington (Bluff-Dunedin 150, Dunedin-Christchurch 204, Christ-church-Wellington 175, Wellington-Sydney 1239), 1768; Bluff to Sydney direct 1107 a difference of 661 miles.

“In the same way,” continued Mr Brodrick, “it can be shown that the people of Dunedin are made to travel 361 miles out of their way on each journey, a total of 722 miles on the round trip, which is, I maintain, a severe handicap to business and progress. The statement attributed to me in the Southland Times of Tuesday last, ‘that the distance from Bluff to Sydney was about 600 miles shorter than from Wellington,’ I never made. It is evidently a typographical error and the latter part should read direct rather than via Wellington and with this the Union Steam Ship Company in their reply practically agree. It is now well known that Bluff is 132 miles nearer to Sydney than Wellington is thus: Wellington to Sydney, 1239 miles and Bluff to Sydney, 1107 miles, a difference of 132 miles.

“Every mile saved is I think a good argument in our favour,” said Mr Brodrick. “I am not going to traverse the Union Steam Ship Company’s arguments against our suggestion that the SydneyWellington passenger service should make alternate trips to Bluff—an obviously fair request. They say it is not commercially possible and I suppose that is the end of it as far as they are concerned but I would remark that as they mention in their reply that ‘if this service had never existed it might have been argued that the provision of greater facilities would tend to create traffic,’ I would retort that the service we are asking for never has existed. Therefore to be logical, they should give it a trial and I am sure it would be a success. The con cession they have given us in the MelbourneBluff service has proved a great boon to the South already and the publication of the passenger list and Customs returns show wonderful results for such a short time of operation.

“In conclusion let me say that the League is wishing to do a large publicity campaign in Sydney for the Southern Scenic Resorts, but until a proper passenger service from Sydney to the South is inaugurated, it would be almost a sheer waste of money to do so.”

Mr Brodrick’s remarks were endorsed by the executive and it was decided to again approach the Union Steam Ship Company on the question of a direct service from Bluff to Sydney.