LANDING CHARGES

Southland Times, Issue 22507, 15 February 1935, Page 9

LANDING CHARGES

MOTOR CARS AT BLUFF DEPARTMENTS ATTITUDE DEPLORED. Disappointment was expressed by the executive of the Invercargill Chamber of Commerce at its meeting yesterday of the attitude adopted by the New Zealand Railways Board with reference, to the representations recently made by the combined deputation from the New Zealand Motor Trade Federation, the Bluff Harbour Board, and the chamber regarding the charge of 9/- in respect of motor cars on wheels delivered to consignees at the ship’s side at Bluff. A communication was before the meeting from the acting General Manager of the Railways, who said that the board had given careful and sympathetic consideration to the request for a reduction, but it was unable to agree to a variation in the charge. “In conveying this decision to you I am to mention that at the time of the introduction of the charge an increasing volume of traffic in assembled motor vehicles was being received ex overseas vessels at the various port throughout the Dominion and several requests had been made by importers for permission to drive the vehicles from the ship’s side under their own power, rather than have them loaded on to trucks and shunted from the wharf to the loading bank,” ran the letter. “The rate of 9/-, which was introduced to meet this position represents 5/8 handling at the ship’s side at 1/5 per ton, based on half the average measurement, plus a charge of 3/4 per vehicle to compensate for the time during which our gangs .may be required to stand by to permit of the movement of the cars from the wharf or the cost of arranging the wharves to allow the motor cars to be driven therefrom. In ordinary circumstances, the handling charges would be based on half the actual measurement of the car, but a standard charge based on half the average measurement was instituted as being more suitable and convenient from the point of view of clients, as otherwise they would have no means of determining in advance what the landed charges on a consignment would amount to. For the same reasons a standard charge was decided on in respect of the time lost in ordinary ■working to allow the motor car to be landed on the wharf and driven away under its own power. In conclusion I am to say’that the flat rate of 9/was brought into operation after an exhaustive investigation was made into the working conditions of the ports controlled by the department. At the direction of the board, I am arranging that the handling of cars in the circumstances under review will be closely observed and the position reviewed in 12 months’ time in the light of the experience which we will then have acquired.” Mr W. Grieve said that the consideration given to the representations was neither sympathetic nor observant. “Mr Sterling told our deputation that we certainly seemed to have a case and, if an adjustment was necessary it would be made,” declared Mr Grieve. “We can substantiate our case, yet Mr Sterling has not been a bit sympathetic; we can confound him with his own words.” The view that the flat rate was absolutely ridiculous was expressed by the president (Mr C. B. Tapley). The charge, he said, was a serious matter as far as Bluff was concerned. The manner in which the board based its charge was wrong. The charge of 3/4 for each vehicle, in addition to the other charge, seemed to be an imposition. Reiterating that the board had not given the representations any consideration, Mr Grieve emphasized that a principle was involved. It was not so much the cost as the principle. First of all the board struck a flat rate, but Mr Sterling had stated that if any hardship was caused to any particular port, the board would be prepared to accept representations. It was mentioned that the Bluff Harbour Board had also received a similar communication on the matter and, on the motion of Mr Grieve, it was decided that the secretary get in touch with the board and frame a reply in similar terms. Mr Grieve was appointed to assist with the reply.