REFUSAL TO USE WHARF

Taranaki Daily News, 29 March 1933, Page 5

REFUSAL TO USE WHARF

VESSELS AT NAPIER BOARD SEEKS LEGAL ADVICE. SUGGESTION OF COMPULSION. Napier has had many worries over its harbours, inner and outer, and though now the inner harbour scheme has moved further into the background, as a result of the smashing of much of the work by the 1931 earthquake and the improvement of outer harbour facilities to make good that loss, certain interests still apparently prefer the former methods of lightering cargo from vessels lying in the roadstead to bringing them to the wharf.

Such methods are, in the opinion of the harbour board, so costly to the producer that the legitimate trade of Napier’s port may be driven to Wellington. The board proposes to obtain legal aavice as to its power to enforce the use of facilities at the outer harbour by those vessels which do not draw too much water to berth there. The question was introduced by the reading of a letter from a Hawke’s Bay business man, remarking that the steamship Benmohr had on her last visit to Napier been lightered in the roadstead, whereas on her previous visit she had been worked at the breakwater wharf. “Much has been heard lately about the centralisation of shipping at the four main ports, but svrely the board real- . ises that the best means of combating this danger is to handle our exports and imports in the cheapest possible manner, thereby placing our port charges on a more competitive basis with our main rival, Wellington,” the letter continued. DELAY AND GREATER COST. A report . made by the board’s wharfinger stated that the Benmohr arrived in the roadstead on February 28 and sailed on March 4, and during that time loaded 6818 bales of wool and, 177 sacks of pelts. There was not the slightest doubt that this ship suffered at least two days’ delay by being worked in the roadstead by lighters, as during her stay there were also two other overseas vessels being lightered. Ti.e limited service by lighters no doubt also caused delay to the other overseas vessels. To cite the case of the Golden Cloud: this vessel ar- ' rived in the roadstead at noon on March 3 to load approximately 650 tons of- manures, and was unable io get any service until 9 a.m. on March 4, and then only one small lighter-load. Two lighters were not available to this ship until Monday, March 6. The demurrage would represent quite a tidy sum, and in the case of the Benmohr would be in the vicinity of £3OO.

Had the Benmohr berthed and worked her cargo at the breakwater, the report continued, she would Hive saved at least two days, and in addition the very considerable amount of primary producers’ money needlessly expended in lighterage. Detailed figures submitted by the wharfinger showed that the lighterage of cargo taken by the Benmohr had cost £634 Is 6d, whereas if the vessel had berthed at the breakwater the haulage cost would have been £BB 18s 6d, a difference of £545 2s. “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.” “I see no reason why the affairs of this board should be in the hands of any vested interest in Hawke’s Bay, and when boats come in, if the board has the power—and I understand it has—they should be handled irrespective of vested interest,” said the chairman. “Our duty as a board is to protect the public interest, and in this case the public interest is not being safeguarded. This vessel berthed before and had she done so again on this occasion the primary producers Would have been saved £5OO. This is a time to save money wherever possible, and here is an instance.” Mr. Geddis moved that the board should seek legal advice on the subject Mr. P. F. Higgins said that though the Benmohr had previously used the breakwater wharf, the vessel was now under charter to overseas firms, some of which refused to work the breakwater, even when they could. “Harbour boards in New Zealand, constituted as they are, are vested in the public,” said Mr. Higgins. “The public are called upon to provide harbour facilities available whenever possible. The Harbour Board should have the power to enforce the use of those facilities. Shipping companies, apparently, could refuse to use facilities and make use of lighters in any port. They would not; in fact, they dare not. But in Napier, torn asunder as we are, the public, whom it vitally concerns, think that certain things are impracticable. It has been a serious matter for many years, and it seems that it is going to be more serious. If one thing is going to force centralisation on this district, it is the factional scrappmg, misrepresentation and lying that go on.” After further discussion the chapman’s motion that the board should obtain legal advice was carried. The board also passed the following resolution dealing with the handling of meat cargoes: “That ths Harbour Board write to the Meat Producers’ Board asking that when making a fresh contract for the carriage of frozen meat fr >m New Zealand to London, provision be made in the contract that if the comtractors refuse to berth their ships, drawing 20 feet, or less, at the Glasgow wharf, Napier, for loading frozen meat and by-products, then shippers may make their own arrangements to have th sir meat loaded by any steamers, at the Glasgow wharf, provided that they do not pay a higher rate of freight for the carriage of their produce from New Zealand to London than the rate agreed upon by the Meat Producers’ Board for the same service.”

During the discussion on this motion a speaker said that they had seen recently eight vessels lying in the roadstead, four of which could have been worked at the wharf.